robogobo
May 3, 05:45 AM
That's the result of modifying the firmware of your phone. If you don't like it, don't do it. Nobody is forcing you to.
I really don't see the point. If you wanted to install your own "homebrew" apps without using the App Store, you can already do so by using "ad-hoc deployment" or joining the Enterprise Developer Program. Either option makes rolling out your own apps simple.
How's the view from under that rock?
Is that really worth breaking compatibility with updates? I don't think so.
If someone does think so, then they can do it... but then it is a bit rich to complain in forums about the need to re-jailbreak every time Apple releases an update.
Must be nice.
I really don't see the point. If you wanted to install your own "homebrew" apps without using the App Store, you can already do so by using "ad-hoc deployment" or joining the Enterprise Developer Program. Either option makes rolling out your own apps simple.
How's the view from under that rock?
Is that really worth breaking compatibility with updates? I don't think so.
If someone does think so, then they can do it... but then it is a bit rich to complain in forums about the need to re-jailbreak every time Apple releases an update.
Must be nice.
Cleverboy
Jan 13, 10:13 AM
Agreed that it was stupid, and may hurt credibility, but i still love reading gizmodo, and would not wish to see them banned from MW or the next CES. People do stupid things, if they do it again, ban them, but i say let them off the hook for this one.They did not emphatically apologize for poor judgement. Briam Lam himself says that the only thing he didn't approve was doing it during press conferences... but when the error has occurred, you need to apologize for the whole incident, not say, "Sorry, we only wanted to screw around with some people, not others." Vendors PAID MONEY to attend this event. Gizmodo willfully inteferered with press conferences, and hasn't editted the article to include anything resembling a wholesale apology. --Just, "Look at this COOL thing we did! Isn't it hilarious! You can do it too!"
Sorry, they bring anything on themselves to be so childish. I honestly went looking for why people were making more out of this than they should have. I read the CNET article and Brian Lam's casual response.
http://valleywag.com/343531/cnet-editor-proves-theres-no-difference-between-press-and-blogger
BY BRIAN LAM AT 01/10/08 06:04 PM
@OMG! Ponies!: @rafe: Relax. It was a joke. Just because we don't do things the way you do, I don't see why that is stupid. The site has proved its intelligence. Did you see that we got Bill Gates to cop to Vista not being so good today? The point is that if we do things the way you do them at CNet, we're CNet. If you do things the way Giz and Engadget do them, you're actually...Crave. (Which I like, and do not call stupid.) Why is this so emotionally disturbing to you both? Motorola, well that was a mistake, as my explicit orders to my video person were to not interrupt press conferences. But that is for me and Moto to sort out tomorrow.
So... "presentations", fair game, "press conferences"... avoid them... but "whoops" if we did. That's infuriatingly bad.
BAN THEM. My opinion. It would have been different had they owned up, but they're not... which means they're proud of it. No good.
Gizmodo is responsible for this because it vouched for the prankster and obtained a credential for him. Media organizations put their reputations at stake each time they obtain a credential for someone, whether it's to a high school basketball game, a trade show or a political event.Gizmodo WAS the prankster (http://gizmodo.com/343348/confessions-the-meanest-thing-gizmodo-did-at-ces). This wasn't a "rogue" guy. Just read their own description of it.
Confessions: The Meanest Thing Gizmodo Did at CES
CES has no shortage of displays. And when MAKE offered us some TV-B-Gone clickers to bring to the show, we pretty much couldn't help ourselves. We shut off a TV. And then another. And then a wall of TVs. And we just couldn't stop. (And Panasonic, you're so lucky that 150-incher didn't have an active IR port.) It was too much fun, but watching this video, we realize it probably made some people's jobs harder, and I don't agree with that (Especially Motorola). We're sorry. [Thanks to Phil Torrone for the gear, video, editing and mischief by Richard Blakeley]
anne hathaway love and other
anne hathaway love other drugs
Love and Other Drugs was
anne hathaway love other drugs
anne hathaway love and other
anne love other drugs oPt
Love and Other Drugs Stills
quot;Love amp; Other Drugsquot; Premieres
Sorry, they bring anything on themselves to be so childish. I honestly went looking for why people were making more out of this than they should have. I read the CNET article and Brian Lam's casual response.
http://valleywag.com/343531/cnet-editor-proves-theres-no-difference-between-press-and-blogger
BY BRIAN LAM AT 01/10/08 06:04 PM
@OMG! Ponies!: @rafe: Relax. It was a joke. Just because we don't do things the way you do, I don't see why that is stupid. The site has proved its intelligence. Did you see that we got Bill Gates to cop to Vista not being so good today? The point is that if we do things the way you do them at CNet, we're CNet. If you do things the way Giz and Engadget do them, you're actually...Crave. (Which I like, and do not call stupid.) Why is this so emotionally disturbing to you both? Motorola, well that was a mistake, as my explicit orders to my video person were to not interrupt press conferences. But that is for me and Moto to sort out tomorrow.
So... "presentations", fair game, "press conferences"... avoid them... but "whoops" if we did. That's infuriatingly bad.
BAN THEM. My opinion. It would have been different had they owned up, but they're not... which means they're proud of it. No good.
Gizmodo is responsible for this because it vouched for the prankster and obtained a credential for him. Media organizations put their reputations at stake each time they obtain a credential for someone, whether it's to a high school basketball game, a trade show or a political event.Gizmodo WAS the prankster (http://gizmodo.com/343348/confessions-the-meanest-thing-gizmodo-did-at-ces). This wasn't a "rogue" guy. Just read their own description of it.
Confessions: The Meanest Thing Gizmodo Did at CES
CES has no shortage of displays. And when MAKE offered us some TV-B-Gone clickers to bring to the show, we pretty much couldn't help ourselves. We shut off a TV. And then another. And then a wall of TVs. And we just couldn't stop. (And Panasonic, you're so lucky that 150-incher didn't have an active IR port.) It was too much fun, but watching this video, we realize it probably made some people's jobs harder, and I don't agree with that (Especially Motorola). We're sorry. [Thanks to Phil Torrone for the gear, video, editing and mischief by Richard Blakeley]
vendettabass
Sep 12, 02:58 AM
I assume the true video ipod will have the same price points as the current ones? if so, its a buy!
KingYaba
Apr 22, 05:03 PM
I had suggested to one of your moderators that MR should disable the tagging feature in the PRSI. I think you should disable this up/down voting thing as well.
t-man
Apr 25, 08:16 PM
Fake. Display looks like paper / printed.
What makes me totally sceptical about this is that the icons on the screen appear wider than they are tall. The square icons on an iPhone, with the phone angled as it is in the photo, should appear taller than they are wide. The inevitable conclusion is that the photo has been stretched horizontally.
And another thing ... the screen in this pic could hardly be described as "edge to edge".
What makes me totally sceptical about this is that the icons on the screen appear wider than they are tall. The square icons on an iPhone, with the phone angled as it is in the photo, should appear taller than they are wide. The inevitable conclusion is that the photo has been stretched horizontally.
And another thing ... the screen in this pic could hardly be described as "edge to edge".
Pontavignon
May 4, 08:07 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
+1
And the camera should take pix when you peel back the cover, use face recognition to identify the user and instantly open to the right account.
+1
And the camera should take pix when you peel back the cover, use face recognition to identify the user and instantly open to the right account.
definitive
Apr 15, 03:51 PM
why even bother posting these fake pictures?
monochrome noise filter in photoshop, anyone?
monochrome noise filter in photoshop, anyone?
JPark
May 3, 01:53 PM
And why is this on mac rumors.
Does it really matter what the competition does.
It's not what the competition does, it's what the wireless companies are doing to the competition (and which they've already done to iPhones).
Does it really matter what the competition does.
It's not what the competition does, it's what the wireless companies are doing to the competition (and which they've already done to iPhones).
cult hero
Mar 24, 05:56 PM
Hmmm... it occurs to me that OS X is an Aries too. That's a good sign!
Doctor Q
May 3, 01:55 PM
I don't really get this... You already pay fees for the data - why do they care for how you use it?
Two answers come to mind:
Anne Hathaway at the
Love And Other Drugs, Anne
anne hathaway love other drugs
anne hathaway love other drugs
quot;Love amp; Other Drugsquot; Press
#39;Love amp; Other Drugs#39; Photocall
quot;Love amp; Other Drugsquot; New York
quot;Love amp; Other Drugsquot; New York
Love and Other Drugs Stills
Two answers come to mind:
wpotere
Apr 13, 07:25 AM
That again? You do realize that 9/11 had very little to do with airport security but everything to do with incompetence on the side of the secret service and negligence on the side of the US government? TSA has not made airtravel any safer than prior to 9/11.
Yeah, because you have access to all of the intellegence reports. :rolleyes: As for the TSA not making air travel any safer you literally have nothing to go on other than making a blind assumption. It is simply another security layer and that in itself will deter some from giving it a try. That being said, if someone wants to kill people bad enough they will and people like you will constantly blame it on others. :rolleyes:
So tell me, what would you prefer? Ponds guards walking the halls or no security at all? I bet your mind might change if you were on a plane that was hijacked.
Yeah, because you have access to all of the intellegence reports. :rolleyes: As for the TSA not making air travel any safer you literally have nothing to go on other than making a blind assumption. It is simply another security layer and that in itself will deter some from giving it a try. That being said, if someone wants to kill people bad enough they will and people like you will constantly blame it on others. :rolleyes:
So tell me, what would you prefer? Ponds guards walking the halls or no security at all? I bet your mind might change if you were on a plane that was hijacked.
ct2k7
Mar 11, 04:38 PM
Transition.
The industry is undergoing a massive paradigm-shift, thanks to Apple.
I am not seeing a transition in the crucial paradigm. They're not slowing down on the desktop and notebook front. Sure, we might be moving towards a tablet computing form factor, but that already exists.
The industry is undergoing a massive paradigm-shift, thanks to Apple.
I am not seeing a transition in the crucial paradigm. They're not slowing down on the desktop and notebook front. Sure, we might be moving towards a tablet computing form factor, but that already exists.
JayMysterio
Dec 9, 06:29 PM
heres what i enjoyed doing best with this game:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v322/JayMax/Misc/a_winner_is_you_1024-590x442.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v322/JayMax/Misc/a_winner_is_you_1024-590x442.jpg
Music-Man
Sep 12, 07:35 AM
They annoyed me this time.. I had 8 songs in my basket and i'm unable to purchase them - I can understand with an online store that delays something for at least 24 hours... but for an instant content delivery system it's rather annoying as a customer.
You won't be if Apple are increasing the bitrate of audio tracks as part of the update. It's about time they did.
You won't be if Apple are increasing the bitrate of audio tracks as part of the update. It's about time they did.
dsnort
Aug 4, 07:56 AM
Still can't agree with ya on the cd thing for one reason, I went to a movie theatre this past weekend. I may be showing my age, but i can remember when the hue and cry was that the availibity of movies on VHS was going to put the theatres out of business, but it didn't. There are always going to be those who want the latest and greatest right now, without having to wait, and these people are willing to pay a premium. Some type of physical media will allow them to do that.
bbplayer5
May 3, 02:29 PM
1. Root
2. XDA Forum
3. Side load
4. ???
5. Winning.
2. XDA Forum
3. Side load
4. ???
5. Winning.
samiwas
Mar 4, 03:57 PM
Minimum wages = unemployment, lower growth
child labor laws = limits free will and opportunities for youngsters
max hours per week = limits free will, opportunity for higher personal revenue
workplace safety = bureaucracy, red tape, lower growth
Holy effin' Shizzle batman! You don't believe this. Come on. Fo' reals? I mean really...come on. I know it, and you know it...you're trolling. There is no way you actually believe that stuff.
Minimum wages = employer must pay at the very least a human wage...not a slave wage. If the employer cannot afford to pay people fairly, their business should fail. Isn't that what the free market is all about? You produce or you fail?
Child Labor Laws = really??? Limits free will?? Opportunities for youngsters? Do you really think that if child labor laws were done away with in this country that some warehouse wouldn't have the 6-year-old kid of some nearly-homeless family out running a meat slicer for $4 a day? Do you REALLY think that kind of thing wouldn't happen? And that something like that is an opportunity for that 6-year-old? You are truly a piece of work. Oh right, I keep forgetting...you're a troll.
Max hours per week does not limit free will. An employer is certainly allowed to let an employee work 100 hours a week if they so want to. I know because I've done it on many occasions. I had a 140-hour week a while back. It's perfectly legal. But you have to PAY OVERTIME. If you want to exploit your workers, you pay them for it. You have the free will to work them overtime, they have the free will to accept that overtime, and then you pay them for it. Don't like it, don't do it...free will, baby.
Workplace safety should not be required? Bwaahahaha. Now, I most certainly do not follow most safety rules in my line of work, because a lot of them are pretty silly. But to do away with required safety procedures for many occupations is just an amazing concept. That you actually believe that employers will willingly pay more if they are not required to in order to keep their employees safe is one of the more laughable things ever.
Don't be naive. The goals are the same, more wealth, health, prosperity, and safety for all. Conservatives simply disagree with your methods. 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.
So being paid overtime for working crazy hours is a HAND OUT? Really?
Cutting wages and pay requirements and removing safety requirements means more wealth and safety for ALL? OK. Hold on, let me comprehend that. Wait, I can't because it's the stupidest thing ever uttered.
Yes. it has been decided. He's a <censored>swell guy</censored>. There is no one who actually thinks like this.
*edit - while I meant what I said, it's not worth getting banned over.
child labor laws = limits free will and opportunities for youngsters
max hours per week = limits free will, opportunity for higher personal revenue
workplace safety = bureaucracy, red tape, lower growth
Holy effin' Shizzle batman! You don't believe this. Come on. Fo' reals? I mean really...come on. I know it, and you know it...you're trolling. There is no way you actually believe that stuff.
Minimum wages = employer must pay at the very least a human wage...not a slave wage. If the employer cannot afford to pay people fairly, their business should fail. Isn't that what the free market is all about? You produce or you fail?
Child Labor Laws = really??? Limits free will?? Opportunities for youngsters? Do you really think that if child labor laws were done away with in this country that some warehouse wouldn't have the 6-year-old kid of some nearly-homeless family out running a meat slicer for $4 a day? Do you REALLY think that kind of thing wouldn't happen? And that something like that is an opportunity for that 6-year-old? You are truly a piece of work. Oh right, I keep forgetting...you're a troll.
Max hours per week does not limit free will. An employer is certainly allowed to let an employee work 100 hours a week if they so want to. I know because I've done it on many occasions. I had a 140-hour week a while back. It's perfectly legal. But you have to PAY OVERTIME. If you want to exploit your workers, you pay them for it. You have the free will to work them overtime, they have the free will to accept that overtime, and then you pay them for it. Don't like it, don't do it...free will, baby.
Workplace safety should not be required? Bwaahahaha. Now, I most certainly do not follow most safety rules in my line of work, because a lot of them are pretty silly. But to do away with required safety procedures for many occupations is just an amazing concept. That you actually believe that employers will willingly pay more if they are not required to in order to keep their employees safe is one of the more laughable things ever.
Don't be naive. The goals are the same, more wealth, health, prosperity, and safety for all. Conservatives simply disagree with your methods. 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.
So being paid overtime for working crazy hours is a HAND OUT? Really?
Cutting wages and pay requirements and removing safety requirements means more wealth and safety for ALL? OK. Hold on, let me comprehend that. Wait, I can't because it's the stupidest thing ever uttered.
Yes. it has been decided. He's a <censored>swell guy</censored>. There is no one who actually thinks like this.
*edit - while I meant what I said, it's not worth getting banned over.
jimthorn
Jan 9, 05:08 PM
No, I mean a link to the actual file, not the streaming version. Some people know how to figure that out. Then it can be watched without choppy streaming when millions of us are watching at the same time.
Hovey
Jul 21, 03:16 PM
Apple Apple Apple... or should I say Steve Steve Steve...
What you are doing right now is what a psychologist would call "diverting." You are simply trying to take away the focus of your own iPhone 4's faults and place everyone's attention on other brands that we do not care about. You admitted you screwed up (congratulations, that is a great first step). Now it is time to take another baby step and fix the problem... your problem... the iPhone 4.
If this is the case then everyone should be complaining to every single cell phone manufacturer and demand a recall from them too. I don't hear or see that, though.
What you are doing right now is what a psychologist would call "diverting." You are simply trying to take away the focus of your own iPhone 4's faults and place everyone's attention on other brands that we do not care about. You admitted you screwed up (congratulations, that is a great first step). Now it is time to take another baby step and fix the problem... your problem... the iPhone 4.
If this is the case then everyone should be complaining to every single cell phone manufacturer and demand a recall from them too. I don't hear or see that, though.
sushi
Apr 16, 08:20 AM
Looks nice. Shape seems good for holding in your hand.
However, I believe that it's fake -- unless it's not metal. Reception would be an issue if it was metal.
However, I believe that it's fake -- unless it's not metal. Reception would be an issue if it was metal.
Unspeaked
Mar 24, 04:37 PM
Can anyone remember the name of the iTunes player in the pic from 2001? it had LOADS of skins and the particular one in the pic! used to sink into the desktop when you clicked the screen or on another program, does anyone know if they brought it back to life? I miss that player SOOOOO MUCHHHHH :(
I think that's Audion.
http://www.panic.com/audion/
I think that's Audion.
http://www.panic.com/audion/
Rocketman
Jul 21, 11:02 AM
What I find interesting is Apple gave a press conference which involved a largely scientific analysis and presentation, wherein they showed:
- The antenna issue impacts 0.55% of users to the degree they expressed concerns.
- The call loss issue is 1/100 or less, worse for the new 4 model than the prior 3GS model.
- The attenuation issue is user impacted and minor behavioral issues can abate it almost entirely.
- Case use was far higher on 3GS vs 4 which accounts for nearly 100% of the experienced issues, thus Apple offered free cases to 4 users who did not buy a case due to supply chain and availability issues.
- The new antenna system is more sensitive, effective and has better actual reception than either the prior model or most other competitors.
- The issue is largely in areas of poor reception to begin with. One factor in this is USA cell cites are less densely distributed than EU sites and the limits of GSM are more revealed here. We have more geographic area to cover so carriers have opted to solve the issue with near minimum density cell site distribution.
All of these factual, supported, known things are widely disregarded in headline style media reports that regurgitate the now disproven claim that Apple iPhone 4 has "an antenna problem", "reception issues", or "a dropped call problem". While there are limited and anecdotal examples of it, largely reproducable from known conditions, there is no there there on an overall and general basis.
Rocketman
Proposed next gen features in all iOS devices:
Mobile hotsopt (tethering)
VoIP
Bluetooth keyboard/track ball/trackpad compatible
Dock to full USB access.
- The antenna issue impacts 0.55% of users to the degree they expressed concerns.
- The call loss issue is 1/100 or less, worse for the new 4 model than the prior 3GS model.
- The attenuation issue is user impacted and minor behavioral issues can abate it almost entirely.
- Case use was far higher on 3GS vs 4 which accounts for nearly 100% of the experienced issues, thus Apple offered free cases to 4 users who did not buy a case due to supply chain and availability issues.
- The new antenna system is more sensitive, effective and has better actual reception than either the prior model or most other competitors.
- The issue is largely in areas of poor reception to begin with. One factor in this is USA cell cites are less densely distributed than EU sites and the limits of GSM are more revealed here. We have more geographic area to cover so carriers have opted to solve the issue with near minimum density cell site distribution.
All of these factual, supported, known things are widely disregarded in headline style media reports that regurgitate the now disproven claim that Apple iPhone 4 has "an antenna problem", "reception issues", or "a dropped call problem". While there are limited and anecdotal examples of it, largely reproducable from known conditions, there is no there there on an overall and general basis.
Rocketman
Proposed next gen features in all iOS devices:
Mobile hotsopt (tethering)
VoIP
Bluetooth keyboard/track ball/trackpad compatible
Dock to full USB access.
Nekbeth
Apr 25, 03:28 PM
I declared timer as an instance method:
- (IBAction) cancelTime: (id) sender;
- (void) cancelIt:(NSTimer*) timer;
@end
mmm.. I think I see where this comes from. I had a similar method and it was declared in inside the (IBAction) method, like this:
- (IBAction) cancelTime: (id) sender;
- (void) cancelIt:(NSTimer*) timer;
@end
mmm.. I think I see where this comes from. I had a similar method and it was declared in inside the (IBAction) method, like this:
JeffDM
Oct 3, 11:11 AM
When will this hacking nerd do something REALLY positive and productive to the world?
Last time I heard, his occupation was to break into companies' IPR without any legal permission to do so...not commendable, to say the least.
It's currently the only way to get non-Disney movies onto an iPod and many other similar devices. It's also a way for users to get the videos they've paid for onto media devices that don't have a DVD drive. For the movie industry to say that they have to buy the movie again is completely ludicrous on their part.
His work allowed people to use the media and devices they paid for in the way that they want to use it. I would call that productive.
I know you probably don't agree with it but frankly, I think the movie industry is being too greedy here.
The DMCA changed that, and until it's tested in court anything where encryption is used or even potentially used is not "safe" to reverse engineer in the US.
DVDJon is in the EU, which I don't think has such a law yet. The DMCA only applies to the US. Counterpart laws are in the works.
There might be some trouble if he decides to come to the US. Adobe had some Russian guy arrested when he came to the US for making a program that applied ROT13 to Adobe's "encrypted" files to make them useable.
He's just another guy trying to make a quick buck...
I think that's a bit of an ignorant comment. It's taken him long enough to get around to doing so, so I don't think "quick" applies. He's been breaking encryption systems for maybe ten years now, I'm not sure if he's made any money on it so far.
My knowledge on these areas is pretty slim but would Apple be able to license FairPlay content only or would that open up the risk of other companies creating MP3 players that could read FairPlay content and, hence, compete with the iPod? ...or is that some sore of seperate licensure?
I doubt that licencing the format would have to mean that it allows competing players. The licensing contracts can be very specific such that it allows only encryptors, not decryptors, and be limited to certain circumstances.
Last time I heard, his occupation was to break into companies' IPR without any legal permission to do so...not commendable, to say the least.
It's currently the only way to get non-Disney movies onto an iPod and many other similar devices. It's also a way for users to get the videos they've paid for onto media devices that don't have a DVD drive. For the movie industry to say that they have to buy the movie again is completely ludicrous on their part.
His work allowed people to use the media and devices they paid for in the way that they want to use it. I would call that productive.
I know you probably don't agree with it but frankly, I think the movie industry is being too greedy here.
The DMCA changed that, and until it's tested in court anything where encryption is used or even potentially used is not "safe" to reverse engineer in the US.
DVDJon is in the EU, which I don't think has such a law yet. The DMCA only applies to the US. Counterpart laws are in the works.
There might be some trouble if he decides to come to the US. Adobe had some Russian guy arrested when he came to the US for making a program that applied ROT13 to Adobe's "encrypted" files to make them useable.
He's just another guy trying to make a quick buck...
I think that's a bit of an ignorant comment. It's taken him long enough to get around to doing so, so I don't think "quick" applies. He's been breaking encryption systems for maybe ten years now, I'm not sure if he's made any money on it so far.
My knowledge on these areas is pretty slim but would Apple be able to license FairPlay content only or would that open up the risk of other companies creating MP3 players that could read FairPlay content and, hence, compete with the iPod? ...or is that some sore of seperate licensure?
I doubt that licencing the format would have to mean that it allows competing players. The licensing contracts can be very specific such that it allows only encryptors, not decryptors, and be limited to certain circumstances.