Don't recall saying it was justice or that Apple somehow was asking for it, or that I hate Apple. Weird how you insert facts that fit your own version. There's a description for that.. oh yes, Weird Liar.
I did say that 99.99999% of times that this situation happens, the police wouldn't even bother writing down a report if you did bother reporting your phone stolen. The only reason it's gone this far is because Apple pushed it. They could have quietly gotten their phone back dozens of other ways, before the guy started trying to sell the story. It has GPS, they knew exactly where it was. Drive a lawyer to the guys house, give him a check and walk away, for far less than $5000, even including what they pay their lawyers.
Instead they tie up the court system for who knows how much but I'm sure it's more than 5 grand, because.... why exactly?
Perhaps the judges & prosecutors should stop selectively enforcing laws for the benefit of giant corporations that make more money per minute than this 'criminal' will in his lifetime.
When Joe Schmoe can call down a police taskforce to find his keys every time he drops them when he's out drunk, I'll start feeling like there was a crime here.
How about you be more careful with your $5000 and not dropping it where anybody can just pick it up?
Now if someone pulled out a gun and made you hand over the $5000, that is a crime, bring out the police and the criminal justice system.
The only reason we're talking about this is because it's an iPhone and Steve got his pickle in a twist that someone saw his secret and ruined his big reveal at MacWorld. A billionaire's tantrum, more or less.
Disassembling an iPhone is destroying it? I'm sorry, I missed the part where Gizmodo tried to blend the phone.
Any 'destruction' was Apple remotely disabling the hardware after they realized the phone was missing.
Gizmodo disassembled the phone to identify the chipsets used, as it was highly likely the phone was some sort of Chinese clone.
Gizmodo is a news organization, previews about a new iProduct are huge news so yes, they bought the story and tried to contact Apple multiple times about it, Apple denied anything to do with it until they couldn't deny it any longer and then in typical Jobs fashion when someone spoils his secrets, they got vindictive and called in the SF Police, even though they knew exactly where to find the phone the entire time and were a lawyer meeting away from a reasonable return of their property.
What is this market you're speaking of? There are lots of linux markets that Ubuntu/Fedora don't serve. SuSE and now OpenSuSE have a much larger presence in Europe. For myself I've been using SuSE for almost a decade and have always found it to be a stable, well designed distro. No other distribution focuses as much love and attention on KDE, yet manages to keep that quality for every desktop they support.
Is that such a bad thing? Although healthcare is by no means a "free market," competition should in theory drive prices down, assuming all else is equal.
Of course, all else is NOT equal. If a new drug wants to compete with an already-existing product, it's got to have some sort of competitive advantage.
If a new cholesterol-reduction drug works 10% better, and with fewer side-effects, it is indeed competing with an already-existing product. However, it's directly benefitting the patient by doing so. Without competition, there is no progress.
Similarly, having multiple drugs on the market to treat the same condition can be extremely beneficial. If a patient is allergic to, or doesn't respond to the first medication, it's nice to have a second alternative.
While true that having more than one chemical formulation is good for the patient in cases of drug resistances, I don't feel the pharma industry is quite truthful when they complain of research costs when a vast segment of their products are near copies of drugs competitors already pushed through to the market, just altered by a molecule or two.
(Also, can you provide a citation for the allegation that Marketing outweighs R&D? Although I agree with your sentiment, most marketing is directed at physicians in the form of educational materials, rather than patients)
The top twenty pharmaceutical companies and their two trade groups, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and Biotechnology Industry Organization, lobbied on at least 1,600 pieces of legislation between 1998 and 2004. According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, pharmaceutical companies spent $900 million on lobbying between 1998 and 2005, more than any other industry. During the same period, they donated $89.9 million to federal candidates and political parties, giving approximately three times as much to Republicans as to Democrats.[1] According to the Center for Public Integrity, from January 2005 through June 2006 alone, the pharmaceutical industry spent approximately $182 million on Federal lobbying.[2] The industry has 1,274 registered lobbyists in Washington D.C. [3]
I'd feel more sympathy for this position if 75% of drugs being marketed weren't designed directly to compete against another companies drugs. Viagra vs Cialis for example.
Furthermore, the R&D costs and the costs of clinical trials are dwarfed by the marketing costs. Which is one big problem with pharmaceuticals in the US. Their use should be decided by a doctor or peer reviewed journals, not a marketing team.
I'm also curious how GSK will react regarding importing of these cheap drugs back into the US market via web pharmacies and their like. Corporations the size of GSK do not make altruistic moves unless they're getting something back in return, so expect someone to be putting forward a bill to eliminate drug imports into the US soon.
Anytime you have multiple users sharing the same PC, you want to have the beefiest PC that you can afford, it doesn't matter if it's a hardware OR a software solution. The newer PCs, however, with Dual and Quad cores make using them for something like this much easier.
2) That Linus uses GNOME and gripes about it instead of just using what he likes. Isn't the entire point of the open source ecosystem to give the user choices? Linus can hardly bitch if he doesn't bother to use an alternative.
2a) Or (even worse) he uses KDE but chooses to go out of his way to bitch at some other open source project.
Actually, Linus uses and prefers KDE but was raked over the coals for publicly stating that was his preference because of what he saw as flaws in GNOME. It was the GNOME groups complaints about his position and their general "You don't even contribute to GNOME" attitude that pushed him to start submitting patches.
And that, in a nutshell, is why the next generation of US and European kids are going to be serving coffee and noodles to the highly motivated, well educated immigrants who will be doing all the real work by then. Please, if 3rd worlders were that educated then 419 scams wouldn't be half as funny.
Furthermore, I'd take the general knowledge base of an average American any day of the week over someone who grew up in a country where it's 'common knowledge' that sleeping with a virgin can cure AIDS.
"You have to look at this through the needs of a child [in the developing world]. A child doesn't want to play the latest video games. he wants to be able to read a book." What reality does this dude live in that he believes a kid would choose "Pride and Prejudice" over Halo?
Hey guess what, nothing is a fuel 'source', as energy can not be created or destroyed, only stored and transferred. That lovely black gold we call oil didn't magically appear, it's just a storage medium. Nor does gas jump straight out of the ground and into my car either, energy must be expended to drill, pump, process, refine and distribute it. Still doesn't get around my point.
The last time I checked with NASA, the shuttle didn't run on Premium Unleaded, so I think that shoots down your whole "hydrogen will never be a fuel source" comment.
Let's also consider that in the entire bredth of human history, it wasn't until the last century that petrolium caught on as a fuel source. Oddly enough right around the time that the technology came about to take advantage of it. So it's not that "hydrogen has never been a fuel source", cause crazy ass comments like that make me want to grind your nose against a nuclear reactor and ask you questions like how many of these did the Romans build. No, the point is that until recently we have not been able to take advantage of hydrogen on a wide scale, and indeed the technology is still in it's early stages.
Oh, and talk about non-viable energy sources, calculate how many food crops would have to be diverted exclusively to bio-fuel purposes to run the US alone for more than a year.
F.E.A.R. on a P1 with a TNT video card wouldn't look that bad if the sole function of the cards were to play the game.
On a computer it would be unplayable, in a console it would work, might not be pretty, but it would work.
But comparing the Wii to a P1 based solely on clock speed vs. the "faster" PS3 and XBox360 is nowhere near accurate. Isn't the PowerPC processor in the Wii RISC vs. the CISC processor in the 360? I don't know about the PS3 unfortunately.
You need to consider what an impact RAM has in the equation, not just for the operating system but for shoving around textures. Strip the OS down to absolute minimum and it'd still look like Quake1 graphics.
You're confusing the XBox's X86 CPU with the XBox360, which uses a 3 core PowerPC chip with each core clocked at 3.2GHz. Considering that they Wii's single core PowerPC CPU is clocked at 729Mhz, then it's reasonable to compare them and state that it is nowhere near as capable as either the XBox360 or the PS3.
But that's what Nintendo wants. Nintendo is not targeting the bleeding edge best visual experience dedicated gameplayer, they're targeting casual gamers who might want to play party games like Donkey Konga or Mario Kart. They might release a Metroid or Resident Evil once in a while to keep their name in the news, but it's not like they really sweat over it.
Essentially, the Wii is a classier version of one of those Atari Retro Joysticks with 8 Classic games built-in things.
The Wii is twice as powerful as the GameCube. Have you ever seen Resident Evil 4 or Metroid Prime on the GC? No Xbox game looks that good, IMO.
Yes, I have seen RE4 on the GC, I happen to own a GC and a PS2. 2 or three really purty games does not a decent library make.
By saying that the Wii has "the power of an Xbox", you are just showing that you know very little about the current generation. Consoles are much more than what the numbers show on paper.
When I say that the Wii is comparable to the XBox, I'm taking into account not just the CPU, which being PPC based is probably faster than the X86 in the XBox, but also the pitiful amount of texture and system RAM. I'm sure, once the developers have had a few years to learn how to tweak the hardware to the max they'll release some really nice looking games, just about at the end of the Wii's service life. Hey, just like RE4 and the GameCube.
The GP is right: on a normal TV, the 3 consoles will look virtually the same.
The main selling point isn't that these consoles look good on a 'normal' tv, it's that you either already have an HD capable set, or will get one during the service life of the console. In which case, PS3/XBox360 will be rendering some really fine graphics at 1080i, while the Wii will still be stuck at 480p.
So, my comments stand, if games are released for all three consoles, the Wii version will have to be butchered down graphically to work. It's inevitable when the other two consoles have 6X more RAM than the Wii, even if you discounted the other hardware specs.
On the PS3... YES. In reality no. But Sony said that you WONT be able to use its blu-ray content WITHOUT the HDMI. While this doesnt say other RIAA companys will do that, it also is pretty much a givin that they will also limit it. You will be able to game yes, but what is the point with having a blu-ray drive in it, if for most of the content that will be played on that dive, you WONT be able to use it if you dont have HDMI.
First, if you're gonna spout paranoid FUD, then get the players names right okay? The RIAA had nothing to do with HDMI, it was the MPAA.
Second, the vast majority of HD capable televisions that have been sold in the US do not have HDMI inputs, which is why EVERYONE has been backing down from enforcing the DRM on Blue-Ray AND HD-DVD.
Furthermore, at the worst, if they do someday force the DRM issue and you don't have HDMI on your Playstation or your TV, then it will just play at 480P resolution instead of 1080i. Waaaah.
its not even that, they also took out the HDMI hookup, which is the whole POINT of the system. Without it all that system is is a PS2 with a more expensive untried possessor and a more expensive and untried Blu-ray drive that you CANT EVEN USE since Blu-Ray requires you have HDMI output.
They took off HDMI from the "core" system, not the more expensive version. There has been nothing to say that you can't upgrade the "core" system with an HDMI dongle yet either.
Blue-Ray does NOT require HDMI, it's only necessary if the disk has the DRM enabled. For your info, HD-DVD is the exact same way.
whats worse is the developers are saying the PS3 is incredibly hard to code for, Sony hasn't given them the tools to help them make the best use of the cell possessor, and as such the games shown looked no better than 360 games which are on a system 200 dollars LESS for the top system, and didnt require you to spend the extra money on a HD-DVD drive since it didnt ship with it in the first place.
Oooh, it's hard to develop for the new system we've maybe had working test versions of for maybe a year. Of course once developers get used to the system they will in NO POSSIBLE CONCEIVABLE WAY!!! EVAH!!! figure out how to really make use of that hardware.
Bah, the same old crap could have been said for the Nintendo64 or the original PS2, it always takes a year or so for people to really get used to the quirks of the new system. Crap, just compare the graphics and gameplay of God of War or Shadow of the Colossus to some of the first games released on the PS2.
The Wii's graphics come closest to the original XBox and will in no way be able to give you anything like the PS3/XBox360. While PS3 and XBox360 games might be cross developable, I do not see how anything released for those powerhouses could ever make it to the Wii without some serious decreases in graphics and playability. It'd be like trying to play F.E.A.R. on a Pentium I with a TNT video card. Theoretically capable, but would you really want to?
You missed my point about HDMI... it's not that people will have to upgrade their TVs it's that people will have to upgrade their TVs AND their PS3s because the low end version doesn't support it. That's not very Future-proof now is it (especially considering Sony expects their consoles to hold 10+ year lifespans).
Can you show me a document that states that the "base" PS3 will have no upgrade capablility to HDMI through a new adapter dongle? You are only assuming that the PS3's AV Multiport is not an upgraded version capable of carrying digital data. I have seen nothing to date which say's upgrading the unit will be impossible, which if that were the case, yes it would be stupid to buy it.
with no HDMI you don't get HDCP and without that you risk your expensive HD movies not actually playing in HD, sure they've claimed to be backing away from it but that has yet to be seen, movie companies will still have that option and if they decide to implement it then you as the user will be screwed. What's the point of spending all the extra money on a BRD capable console if you don't actually get HD movies?
True, but until all or a majority of the HD capable TV's sold in the US are HDMI capable, then it's not likely that they'll force HDCP anytime soon. By that time, you might be wanting to upgrade your TV anyway.
As for the controller if the Console doesn't support rumble then all the 3rd parties in the world wont make it come back. 3rd party controllers generally suck compared to 1st party anyway. Even if they did implement it, without it being built into the 1st party hardware 0 games will support it, the only thing it'd be useful for is playing old PS1 and PS2 games.
Exactly, compatability with PS1/PS2 games was what I was considering when I said that you could by a 3rd party controller. It will be several years before the PS3 catalog comes close to the PS2 catalog, so lots of people will be playing both on the PS3.
Also we have not yet heard that Rumble can't be added to the Tilt capable controllers. All we know at this point is that no one has specifically mentioned it.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't recall saying it was justice or that Apple somehow was asking for it, or that I hate Apple. Weird how you insert facts that fit your own version. There's a description for that.. oh yes, Weird Liar.
I did say that 99.99999% of times that this situation happens, the police wouldn't even bother writing down a report if you did bother reporting your phone stolen. The only reason it's gone this far is because Apple pushed it. They could have quietly gotten their phone back dozens of other ways, before the guy started trying to sell the story. It has GPS, they knew exactly where it was. Drive a lawyer to the guys house, give him a check and walk away, for far less than $5000, even including what they pay their lawyers.
Instead they tie up the court system for who knows how much but I'm sure it's more than 5 grand, because.... why exactly?
Perhaps the judges & prosecutors should stop selectively enforcing laws for the benefit of giant corporations that make more money per minute than this 'criminal' will in his lifetime.
When Joe Schmoe can call down a police taskforce to find his keys every time he drops them when he's out drunk, I'll start feeling like there was a crime here.
Gizmodo didn't buy the phone. They paid the guy for the story and access to the phone.
How about you be more careful with your $5000 and not dropping it where anybody can just pick it up?
Now if someone pulled out a gun and made you hand over the $5000, that is a crime, bring out the police and the criminal justice system.
The only reason we're talking about this is because it's an iPhone and Steve got his pickle in a twist that someone saw his secret and ruined his big reveal at MacWorld. A billionaire's tantrum, more or less.
Disassembling an iPhone is destroying it? I'm sorry, I missed the part where Gizmodo tried to blend the phone.
Any 'destruction' was Apple remotely disabling the hardware after they realized the phone was missing.
Gizmodo disassembled the phone to identify the chipsets used, as it was highly likely the phone was some sort of Chinese clone.
Gizmodo is a news organization, previews about a new iProduct are huge news so yes, they bought the story and tried to contact Apple multiple times about it, Apple denied anything to do with it until they couldn't deny it any longer and then in typical Jobs fashion when someone spoils his secrets, they got vindictive and called in the SF Police, even though they knew exactly where to find the phone the entire time and were a lawyer meeting away from a reasonable return of their property.
What is this market you're speaking of? There are lots of linux markets that Ubuntu/Fedora don't serve. SuSE and now OpenSuSE have a much larger presence in Europe. For myself I've been using SuSE for almost a decade and have always found it to be a stable, well designed distro. No other distribution focuses as much love and attention on KDE, yet manages to keep that quality for every desktop they support.
Is that such a bad thing? Although healthcare is by no means a "free market," competition should in theory drive prices down, assuming all else is equal.
Of course, all else is NOT equal. If a new drug wants to compete with an already-existing product, it's got to have some sort of competitive advantage.
If a new cholesterol-reduction drug works 10% better, and with fewer side-effects, it is indeed competing with an already-existing product. However, it's directly benefitting the patient by doing so. Without competition, there is no progress.
Similarly, having multiple drugs on the market to treat the same condition can be extremely beneficial. If a patient is allergic to, or doesn't respond to the first medication, it's nice to have a second alternative.
While true that having more than one chemical formulation is good for the patient in cases of drug resistances, I don't feel the pharma industry is quite truthful when they complain of research costs when a vast segment of their products are near copies of drugs competitors already pushed through to the market, just altered by a molecule or two.
(Also, can you provide a citation for the allegation that Marketing outweighs R&D? Although I agree with your sentiment, most marketing is directed at physicians in the form of educational materials, rather than patients)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm
Marketing is double the cost of research. That probably does not also include lobbying fees
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_lobby
The top twenty pharmaceutical companies and their two trade groups, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and Biotechnology Industry Organization, lobbied on at least 1,600 pieces of legislation between 1998 and 2004. According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, pharmaceutical companies spent $900 million on lobbying between 1998 and 2005, more than any other industry. During the same period, they donated $89.9 million to federal candidates and political parties, giving approximately three times as much to Republicans as to Democrats.[1] According to the Center for Public Integrity, from January 2005 through June 2006 alone, the pharmaceutical industry spent approximately $182 million on Federal lobbying.[2] The industry has 1,274 registered lobbyists in Washington D.C. [3]
I'd feel more sympathy for this position if 75% of drugs being marketed weren't designed directly to compete against another companies drugs. Viagra vs Cialis for example.
Furthermore, the R&D costs and the costs of clinical trials are dwarfed by the marketing costs. Which is one big problem with pharmaceuticals in the US. Their use should be decided by a doctor or peer reviewed journals, not a marketing team.
I'm also curious how GSK will react regarding importing of these cheap drugs back into the US market via web pharmacies and their like. Corporations the size of GSK do not make altruistic moves unless they're getting something back in return, so expect someone to be putting forward a bill to eliminate drug imports into the US soon.
Anytime you have multiple users sharing the same PC, you want to have the beefiest PC that you can afford, it doesn't matter if it's a hardware OR a software solution. The newer PCs, however, with Dual and Quad cores make using them for something like this much easier.
You're thinking of nComputing and they're still around: http://www.ncomputing.com/ They have a nice hardware setup that allows up to 30 users on a single PC, and it runs on Windows 2000, XP, Server 2003, and Linux. You can also find them on TigerDirect http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTool s/search.asp?keywords=ncomputing&image1.x=0&image1 .y=0
Linus' usability patches?
2 37
http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=07/02/16/1937
Furthermore, I'd take the general knowledge base of an average American any day of the week over someone who grew up in a country where it's 'common knowledge' that sleeping with a virgin can cure AIDS.
Hey guess what, nothing is a fuel 'source', as energy can not be created or destroyed, only stored and transferred. That lovely black gold we call oil didn't magically appear, it's just a storage medium. Nor does gas jump straight out of the ground and into my car either, energy must be expended to drill, pump, process, refine and distribute it. Still doesn't get around my point.
The last time I checked with NASA, the shuttle didn't run on Premium Unleaded, so I think that shoots down your whole "hydrogen will never be a fuel source" comment.
Let's also consider that in the entire bredth of human history, it wasn't until the last century that petrolium caught on as a fuel source. Oddly enough right around the time that the technology came about to take advantage of it. So it's not that "hydrogen has never been a fuel source", cause crazy ass comments like that make me want to grind your nose against a nuclear reactor and ask you questions like how many of these did the Romans build. No, the point is that until recently we have not been able to take advantage of hydrogen on a wide scale, and indeed the technology is still in it's early stages.
Oh, and talk about non-viable energy sources, calculate how many food crops would have to be diverted exclusively to bio-fuel purposes to run the US alone for more than a year.
You need to consider what an impact RAM has in the equation, not just for the operating system but for shoving around textures. Strip the OS down to absolute minimum and it'd still look like Quake1 graphics.
You're confusing the XBox's X86 CPU with the XBox360, which uses a 3 core PowerPC chip with each core clocked at 3.2GHz. Considering that they Wii's single core PowerPC CPU is clocked at 729Mhz, then it's reasonable to compare them and state that it is nowhere near as capable as either the XBox360 or the PS3.
But that's what Nintendo wants. Nintendo is not targeting the bleeding edge best visual experience dedicated gameplayer, they're targeting casual gamers who might want to play party games like Donkey Konga or Mario Kart. They might release a Metroid or Resident Evil once in a while to keep their name in the news, but it's not like they really sweat over it.
Essentially, the Wii is a classier version of one of those Atari Retro Joysticks with 8 Classic games built-in things.
Yes, I have seen RE4 on the GC, I happen to own a GC and a PS2. 2 or three really purty games does not a decent library make.
When I say that the Wii is comparable to the XBox, I'm taking into account not just the CPU, which being PPC based is probably faster than the X86 in the XBox, but also the pitiful amount of texture and system RAM. I'm sure, once the developers have had a few years to learn how to tweak the hardware to the max they'll release some really nice looking games, just about at the end of the Wii's service life. Hey, just like RE4 and the GameCube.
The main selling point isn't that these consoles look good on a 'normal' tv, it's that you either already have an HD capable set, or will get one during the service life of the console. In which case, PS3/XBox360 will be rendering some really fine graphics at 1080i, while the Wii will still be stuck at 480p.
So, my comments stand, if games are released for all three consoles, the Wii version will have to be butchered down graphically to work. It's inevitable when the other two consoles have 6X more RAM than the Wii, even if you discounted the other hardware specs.
First, if you're gonna spout paranoid FUD, then get the players names right okay? The RIAA had nothing to do with HDMI, it was the MPAA.
Second, the vast majority of HD capable televisions that have been sold in the US do not have HDMI inputs, which is why EVERYONE has been backing down from enforcing the DRM on Blue-Ray AND HD-DVD.
Furthermore, at the worst, if they do someday force the DRM issue and you don't have HDMI on your Playstation or your TV, then it will just play at 480P resolution instead of 1080i. Waaaah.
They took off HDMI from the "core" system, not the more expensive version. There has been nothing to say that you can't upgrade the "core" system with an HDMI dongle yet either.
Blue-Ray does NOT require HDMI, it's only necessary if the disk has the DRM enabled. For your info, HD-DVD is the exact same way.
Oooh, it's hard to develop for the new system we've maybe had working test versions of for maybe a year. Of course once developers get used to the system they will in NO POSSIBLE CONCEIVABLE WAY!!! EVAH!!! figure out how to really make use of that hardware.
Bah, the same old crap could have been said for the Nintendo64 or the original PS2, it always takes a year or so for people to really get used to the quirks of the new system. Crap, just compare the graphics and gameplay of God of War or Shadow of the Colossus to some of the first games released on the PS2.
The Wii/Revolution's Specs:
PowerPC CPU@729Mhz
GPU 243MHz w/3MB VRAM
80MB System RAM
XBox360 Specs:
Tri-Core CPU@3.2GHz
500MHz GPU
512MB System RAM/Video RAM
PS3 Specs
8 SPE PowerPC CPU@3.2GHz
550MHz GPU w/256MB RAM
256MB System RAM
Incorporated Ageia Physx Technology
The Wii's graphics come closest to the original XBox and will in no way be able to give you anything like the PS3/XBox360. While PS3 and XBox360 games might be cross developable, I do not see how anything released for those powerhouses could ever make it to the Wii without some serious decreases in graphics and playability. It'd be like trying to play F.E.A.R. on a Pentium I with a TNT video card. Theoretically capable, but would you really want to?
I am by no means a Sony fanboy, I just feel that people are freaking out without all the information yet.
Can you show me a document that states that the "base" PS3 will have no upgrade capablility to HDMI through a new adapter dongle? You are only assuming that the PS3's AV Multiport is not an upgraded version capable of carrying digital data. I have seen nothing to date which say's upgrading the unit will be impossible, which if that were the case, yes it would be stupid to buy it.
True, but until all or a majority of the HD capable TV's sold in the US are HDMI capable, then it's not likely that they'll force HDCP anytime soon. By that time, you might be wanting to upgrade your TV anyway.
Exactly, compatability with PS1/PS2 games was what I was considering when I said that you could by a 3rd party controller. It will be several years before the PS3 catalog comes close to the PS2 catalog, so lots of people will be playing both on the PS3.
Also we have not yet heard that Rumble can't be added to the Tilt capable controllers. All we know at this point is that no one has specifically mentioned it.