theBB
Jan 14, 08:48 PM
Now, Gizmodo just posted another editorial. They are not just refusing to apologize, they are actually proud. Supposedly this is a an act of civil disobedience, a sign of their independence. Not only are they being immature jerks, but exhibit this self righteous attitude. It is just a prank, (actually it is not even a creative one) so it is not that big of a deal, but their new editorial makes them seem even more immature. I wonder if somebody is going to play pranks on them to show some independence of his own.
Eidorian
Mar 28, 04:47 PM
With the Mac App Store I can take a quick glance, click update all if there are any updates and be done with it.What happens if you never open the Mac App Store?
matrix07
Apr 16, 01:30 PM
Miss by a mile, indeed. You can't read.
A tablet is always without keyboard. What's that got anything to do with touch screen keyboard on phone, which always has keyboard before iPhone? If you said you have iPhone then yes I'll admit I can't read.
Or I can rephrase it: "You are one of those idiots crawling at Engadget who saw Macworld 2007 keynote and think only one thing.. "AT&T? Yuck!!!" Cool?
A tablet is always without keyboard. What's that got anything to do with touch screen keyboard on phone, which always has keyboard before iPhone? If you said you have iPhone then yes I'll admit I can't read.
Or I can rephrase it: "You are one of those idiots crawling at Engadget who saw Macworld 2007 keynote and think only one thing.. "AT&T? Yuck!!!" Cool?
IJ Reilly
Oct 19, 11:37 AM
Damn! Can only wonder what it cost back then..those were dark days back then...
I've bought and sold quite a bit of AAPL over the years since, but always held onto my original stake. My cost basis is around $4 a share. Now I can't afford to sell it!
I've bought and sold quite a bit of AAPL over the years since, but always held onto my original stake. My cost basis is around $4 a share. Now I can't afford to sell it!
eawmp1
May 4, 03:19 PM
Not at all, I despise the NRA and I don't even own guns. To be clear, I feel Dr. Choi should be free to ask such questions without losing his license or going to jail; likewise I should be free to decline to discuss such matters with him.
Do you have precription medications locked up?
Are household cleaners and poisons out of reach?
Is poison control's # on your phone?
Do you have a fire escape plan?
Do you have your child in an age-appropriate safety seat correctly installed?
Do you have a pool, and is there an alarm or safety gate?
Does your child wear a bike helmet?
etc.
Why does a question about a potentially dangerous object and your provisions for its safe keeping threaten you? The doctor is not playing politics, hes practicing good preventative medicine.
Do you have precription medications locked up?
Are household cleaners and poisons out of reach?
Is poison control's # on your phone?
Do you have a fire escape plan?
Do you have your child in an age-appropriate safety seat correctly installed?
Do you have a pool, and is there an alarm or safety gate?
Does your child wear a bike helmet?
etc.
Why does a question about a potentially dangerous object and your provisions for its safe keeping threaten you? The doctor is not playing politics, hes practicing good preventative medicine.
Chundles
Nov 16, 07:48 AM
Here we go folks.
...The claim - cited by DigiTimes...
Just to put everybody's mind at ease. These are the guys who predicted the arrival of a G5 iBook in early 2005.
They have never, ever been right.
...The claim - cited by DigiTimes...
Just to put everybody's mind at ease. These are the guys who predicted the arrival of a G5 iBook in early 2005.
They have never, ever been right.
John Purple
Jan 9, 04:16 AM
New MBP with two penryns (liquid cooling :confused: ) and faster graphics
Revolutionary new user interface (other than old keyboard, mouse and/or trackpad)
Aperture 2.0 (at last :o )
New displays (in combination with newuser interface ???)
Revolutionary new user interface (other than old keyboard, mouse and/or trackpad)
Aperture 2.0 (at last :o )
New displays (in combination with newuser interface ???)
Abstract
Jan 12, 07:59 AM
Look, I feel as if with all the rumors that were flying around about the iPhone, WE pressured him to release the iPhone by Macworld. He did what we wanted. But it was such a large project that he had to forgo releasing other products that we wanted as well. We expected too much of him, and for you to act like that he is an a-hole for releasing something as revolutionary as the iPhone is just plain indecent. </$0.02>
Good answer. I never thought about it that way. :)
But you watched. Again.
Q.E.D.
Haha, zing!
who are you kidding? what part of iphone is not previously existed in technology? yay it has a nice UI, like all other apple products, but the hardware?
remind me, again, what's revolutionary about iPhone?
You seem to look at the iPhone as a phone + media device. You're right, it's not the first one. It's not even the first touch screen device. However, you're looking at this iPhone as the sum of its parts when usability has to be taken into account.
If I had the same mindset as you and many others, I could have easily said in "The iPod? It's just an mp3 player with a harddrive in it. A few companies do that already." My point is that you would have never considered ANY Apple phone as revolutionary unless it covered entirely new ground, like holographic video or something. Sometimes, just making it easier for people to do the things they already do is a huge step.
Good answer. I never thought about it that way. :)
But you watched. Again.
Q.E.D.
Haha, zing!
who are you kidding? what part of iphone is not previously existed in technology? yay it has a nice UI, like all other apple products, but the hardware?
remind me, again, what's revolutionary about iPhone?
You seem to look at the iPhone as a phone + media device. You're right, it's not the first one. It's not even the first touch screen device. However, you're looking at this iPhone as the sum of its parts when usability has to be taken into account.
If I had the same mindset as you and many others, I could have easily said in "The iPod? It's just an mp3 player with a harddrive in it. A few companies do that already." My point is that you would have never considered ANY Apple phone as revolutionary unless it covered entirely new ground, like holographic video or something. Sometimes, just making it easier for people to do the things they already do is a huge step.
jntdigital
Apr 25, 01:43 PM
he's not the only one still boasting a first-gen iPhone! ;)
I'm still lovin' it!
Same here! Still carry it with no case. But it is really time to send this one into retirement.
I'm still lovin' it!
Same here! Still carry it with no case. But it is really time to send this one into retirement.
ct2k7
Apr 16, 10:19 AM
Ok, Mr. Intelligent. It's been 3 years since the original iPhone launched. Perhaps Apple found a way to make a phone out of aluminum or a similar material, without affecting performance? Also, the iPad is made out of aluminum, yet it uses 3G service. You're acting like you know for sure what will happen, and you don't. None of us do.
The iPad has a black strip if you hadn't noticed, much like the original iPhone.
The iPad has a black strip if you hadn't noticed, much like the original iPhone.
rnelan7
Apr 10, 02:39 PM
Samsung PN50C8000 x3.
Continuing to build my ultimate theater room - just need to paint the in wall speakers that were installed.
Just curious, why three televisions instead of just one big projector?
Continuing to build my ultimate theater room - just need to paint the in wall speakers that were installed.
Just curious, why three televisions instead of just one big projector?
PlayRadioPlay
Apr 5, 03:36 PM
A few hundred advertising majors will download this app, and that's it.
underblu
Apr 20, 02:17 AM
I use both OSX and Windows.
Apple has it right: simplicity and robustness. Why change the OSX UI, it's straightforwd, lacks unesesary adornments and most importantly doesn't get in the way.
I don't get the whole OS thing anyway. To me it's all about the apllications anyway.
Having been a diehard Windows fan for years they lost me with Vista and not being able to buy a powerful lightweight aluminim Laptop with good battery life made the choice of a MBP overwhelming. I really grown to like OSX and hope they keep the look and feel.
You know to this day you can look at a Porsche 911 from 1967 and see the continuity of design through the years. Because why fool with desingn perfection when refinement is all that's needed.
Apple has it right: simplicity and robustness. Why change the OSX UI, it's straightforwd, lacks unesesary adornments and most importantly doesn't get in the way.
I don't get the whole OS thing anyway. To me it's all about the apllications anyway.
Having been a diehard Windows fan for years they lost me with Vista and not being able to buy a powerful lightweight aluminim Laptop with good battery life made the choice of a MBP overwhelming. I really grown to like OSX and hope they keep the look and feel.
You know to this day you can look at a Porsche 911 from 1967 and see the continuity of design through the years. Because why fool with desingn perfection when refinement is all that's needed.
balamw
Apr 12, 07:56 AM
Maybe some computers come with Office as a promotional deal, and if they do, that's up to the OEM, not Microsoft. Nonetheless, I've not seen any PC come with more than a 30 day trial of Office.
See my edit above. With 2010 Office Starter 2010 is an option for the OEM. It replaces Works and the Word viewer and gives a better upgrade path to "real" Office.
http://www.microsoft.com/oem/en/products/office/pages/office_2010_starter.aspx
Office Starter 2010 is not a trial–it has a perpetual license that does not expire. Office Starter 2010 is an advertising-supported base productivity suite that is available only on new PCs. It must be preloaded on new PCs at the point of manufacture. Office Starter 2010 is not available for existing PCs at any time after manufacture; for example, Office Starter 2010 cannot be installed on new PCs being sold by resellers, even brand-new PCs. It will not be sold through distribution or available to end users as a standalone product.
B
See my edit above. With 2010 Office Starter 2010 is an option for the OEM. It replaces Works and the Word viewer and gives a better upgrade path to "real" Office.
http://www.microsoft.com/oem/en/products/office/pages/office_2010_starter.aspx
Office Starter 2010 is not a trial–it has a perpetual license that does not expire. Office Starter 2010 is an advertising-supported base productivity suite that is available only on new PCs. It must be preloaded on new PCs at the point of manufacture. Office Starter 2010 is not available for existing PCs at any time after manufacture; for example, Office Starter 2010 cannot be installed on new PCs being sold by resellers, even brand-new PCs. It will not be sold through distribution or available to end users as a standalone product.
B
GSMiller
Jan 15, 09:22 PM
I don't know what is more lame...
The fact that Gizmodo actually pulled such a stunt or that Motorola used a presenter with a British accent.
The fact that Gizmodo actually pulled such a stunt or that Motorola used a presenter with a British accent.
firstadopter
Nov 28, 05:27 PM
I like Black Ops multi-player the best out of all the CODs etc. It seems that fixed up a lot of outstanding gameplay mechanics and issues. Much less frustrating than MOW2.
Jeonat
Oct 17, 12:47 PM
I haven't read the rest of the thread but yes, absolutely makes sense that Apple support both types of drive. We don't know the outcome yet of the format war - it could go either way. Why alienate, for example, movie makers who would switch to another platform if HD-DVD wasn't supported.
Sensible move.
Sensible move.
parkds
Sep 28, 01:36 PM
Having been into Jobs NYC apartment before it got sold to Bono, this is about the type of design I would expect. Clean, efficient, stark. Wonder if it will have black granite floors throughout, like his NYC abode did, with every outdoor surface being heated.
Awakener
Apr 17, 08:05 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Android is "closed"... an open system would be a Linux one where you can chop and change every part of the system right down to the kernel. Not gonna happen with mobile devices without hacking IMO.
Agreed.
Plus Android devices seem loaded with uninstallable Google services.
But I don't trust Google's motives. When Android stands on its own then it might be something great.
Android is "closed"... an open system would be a Linux one where you can chop and change every part of the system right down to the kernel. Not gonna happen with mobile devices without hacking IMO.
Agreed.
Plus Android devices seem loaded with uninstallable Google services.
But I don't trust Google's motives. When Android stands on its own then it might be something great.
qtx43
Apr 16, 09:38 AM
... "Apple seriously need to reconsider leaving out 3G and the ability to install software if they want to make it in the smart phone business", a phone that doesn't let you install new software is by definiton not a smart phone. ...I find this whole "Apple invented the smartphone" argument amusing. But your sentence there, in all its self-contradictory glory, gets to the heart of the matter. The word 'smartphone' preexisted the iPhone (by your own admission). So no matter what new features it had, and however much it revolutionized the market, the iPhone was not the first smartphone. Come up with a new word, maybe GeniusPhone. Apple likes the word 'genius'.
bj3949
Apr 15, 04:21 PM
Probably not real. I really hope the next iPhone has a camera flash, and I think the camera flash should be the Apple logo on the back. Wouldn't that be sick????
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
Flowbee
Jan 12, 03:05 PM
not me. the video was sooo hilarious. CES = the most prominent electronics show in the world with the MOST HIGH TECH tech you can find. and they allow for a 14.99 POS hack to ruin almost every booth.
And I could have ruined every booth with a $1.99 slingshot and a pocket full of small stones.
You can't demonstrate tech products in an open environment while at the same time disabling their features and ensuring that nobody will tamper with them. How do you let people try out your new TV if you've had to disable the IR?
If pranks like these become more common, companies and trade shows will start to put severe restrictions on who's allowed to attend their events. And that's a bad thing. It's pretty safe to say that Gizmodo, Engadget, and all the other tech blogs would continue to cover CES product announcements whether they're invited to the event or not, so the big manufacturers don't have much to lose by the blogs not being there.
And I could have ruined every booth with a $1.99 slingshot and a pocket full of small stones.
You can't demonstrate tech products in an open environment while at the same time disabling their features and ensuring that nobody will tamper with them. How do you let people try out your new TV if you've had to disable the IR?
If pranks like these become more common, companies and trade shows will start to put severe restrictions on who's allowed to attend their events. And that's a bad thing. It's pretty safe to say that Gizmodo, Engadget, and all the other tech blogs would continue to cover CES product announcements whether they're invited to the event or not, so the big manufacturers don't have much to lose by the blogs not being there.
carlgo
Dec 14, 01:31 PM
Yay, satellites. Or drones. There you go, so much cooler. Space age instead of silly towers.
How a little iPhone could transmit to hundreds of miles into space is problematical, but there is all of this alien technology...
Maybe the data centers are sat communications facilities.
Ahhh, not likely but it is fun to think about.
How a little iPhone could transmit to hundreds of miles into space is problematical, but there is all of this alien technology...
Maybe the data centers are sat communications facilities.
Ahhh, not likely but it is fun to think about.
No comments:
Post a Comment