With the exception of charging the battery, everything I do with my iPad I do wirelessly. Connecting a cable to it for any reason seems like a step backward.
Curiously enough, you can actually have something a lot like this, right now.
We've stopped subscribing to cable/satellite, and now watch everything on an Apple TV. Through iTunes, you can rent (with a budget of $100/month) 20 movies in HD (at $4.99 each), or buy 30 TV episodes (at $2.99 each in HD, if bought individually); or any combination. You get to pick what you want, and you pay only for what you watch, so in months when you're busy with other things you can pay nothing at all, if you like.
Apple did recently remove the option to rent HD television episodes at $1.99, but you can buy full seasons ("season pass") which typically offer decent savings.
That directory also houses applications that are not usually directly invoked by the user, but from another event (apps like Installer, Bluetooth Setup Assistant, Keyboard Setup Assistant, and so forth, most of which are started by taking action within the System Preferences app.)
I'm not certain how you'd invoke Wi-Fi diagnostics, but it might be part of the troubleshooting path which also contains the Network Setup Assistant.
They did the exact same thing with iMovie a couple of years ago. They built a completely new product, and let it take over the name of a popular and established but long in the tooth product.
Yes, but they left iMovie HD 6 available for download - for free, if I remember correctly - until the new version of iMovie reached feature parity. The problem here isn't really that FCPX removed features, but that FCP7 is no longer available at all.
They've been updating anti-malware definitions since 10.4. The threats that the built-in system protects against are listed in System/Library/Core Services/CoreTypes.bundle/Contents/Resources/XProtect.plist
I'd probably pay $50/mo for it as long as I wasn't limited to streaming to ONE device at a time
I agree, I'd pay more for more content. I think most of us would. You can, however, stream to more than one device at a time right now. My wife and I do it all the time, either one Apple TV and a computer, or two Apple TVs.
And this why Android will eventually displace IOS as the mobile operating system of choice, those vendors who choose to sell only for Android will be at least 30% less expensive.
I doubt that. Do you actually think that if Amazon sold a book on the iPhone for $10, they'd sell the same book on Android for $7? Why would they give you the three bucks? They'll sell it for the same price on ALL platforms and just keep the extra they make from non-iOS sales.
It's like saying that shooting beer cans off a fence is shooting
Actually there happens to be an applicable word for that - it's called "plinking".
Your point is a good one, though. The fight to keep the meaning of the word "hacker" pure is lost, and has been for some time. I think, though, that given context and knowledge of who's using the word about whom, we'll still be able to use it the way we always have ("Put a 3.2 GHz Phenom into your Linksys router? What a hack!") and let the rest of humanity use it however they will.
My wife doesn't know any of my passwords, and I don't know any of hers. However, I do have an escrow file which she can open in the event of my death which contains them all.
She will need access to banking sites etc. when that happens, so privacy until then, and full disclosure after.
One small issue with moving everything to https is that you need one IP address per domain. That puts a pretty big wrinkle in the many, many servers out there that serve up multiple domains per IP. (Technically, you can do so if you utilize unique ports on the same IP for each served domain, but that breaks the "just works" aspect of port 443).
It's not insurmountable, but it does put more pressure on the already shrinking IPv4 pool. Another reason to hasten the adoption of IPv6, I suppose...
It's just an alternative suggestion. You're obviously free to approach the problem however you like, and as I indicated, I think Click2Flash is a great plugin.
I think you might be surprised, however, how many sites will provide working versions of their sites that don't have Flash elements. Looking at the browser share of all the iOS devices, it's not hard to see why.
Increasing the number of Flash-less browsers will only encourage more web developers to produce sites that don't require Flash, or at minimum, will gracefully degrade when it isn't present.
Yeah, I didn't see it until you linked it. =) But he, like me, missed that Adobe has an official uninstaller for Flash, linked by cerberusss here. That's a better way to go.
Also, if you were worried about things that use Air like Pandora One (I was), you needn't. They all work just fine in the absence of Flash.
I didn't say it was a better solution, I said it was an alternative solution. Obviously you're free to do whatever you like, but living without Flash is easier than you might think.
Alternatively, just uninstall Flash. You really don't need it for most of the web these days. (On OSX, it lives in/Library/Internet Plug-ins; you'll want to remove Flash Player.plugin, flashplayer.xpt, and the Shockwave file, I don't remember the name.)
Click2Flash is a great plugin, I used it for months. The problem with it is that it tells sites you have Flash installed; it just takes over for Flash and then releases content to the real plugin when you click on the box. The downside to that is that you prevent the site from sending alternate content which can be sent if your browser reports no Flash plugin.
For those sites that won't work any other way, load them in Chrome, which has an internal Flash renderer. When you're done you can quit Chrome and go back to your regular browser, with which you can write a note to the admin of the site you just visited asking them to get their head our of their ass and provide alternate content.
Yeah, that's what bugs me. IE9 is in beta, so it's much newer than the shipping versions they tested it against. How would it have compared to Firefox 5, or Safari 6, or Opera 11?
TFA strongly implies that the App Store was distributing VLC on its own initiative, not at the behest of the author.
Which is bullshit. VLC didn't show up on the App Store by magic, and it's not Apple that put it there. Someone got an iOS Developer License from Apple, agreed to its terms, and then compiled VLC for iOS, and submitted it for distribution in the App Store.
Now, somone–ostensibly a different someone–who has code in VLC has noticed that it's incompatible and is asking Apple to remove it. Apple has no choice, really, the license doesn't allow it to stay in the App Store, so poof. It's gone.
Now try to figure out how this helps anyone. It isn't good for the users, certainly, since an app they could otherwise get is now gone. I don't see how it helps the developers of VLC; an extremely popular distribution channel is now closed to them. And it doesn't help or harm Apple, really, unless someone is really broken up about not being able to get a frankly redundant video player on their device.
Who submitted the iOS VLC app to the App Store? Apple didn't go looking for VLC so they could have it, someone submitted the application without sufficient regard as to whether or not it could be legally distributed there.
Apple didn't catch it in the review process (we all know how well that works) and now they're being asked to remove it. You say "if Apple chooses to remove VLC from their App Store" as if Apple has a choice. They do not - they're in violation of the license.
This is not an App Store issue. It's an issue with the license of this application being in conflict with the conditions of the App Store. Apple can't fix it without the GPL allowing an exception, or the application authors allowing an exception.
you don't have to buy a "coding" license to write hello world on a Mac box
...Unless it was for iPhone development.
Your alternative is having Apple develop a version of XCode for Windows. Given how iTunes and Safari are on Windows compared to their OS X versions, I'll just say "no thanks."
If you're serious about developing for the iOS platform, getting a Mac isn't that large an obstacle. Although, I do think it sucks for the "hobbyist" programmer who'd just like to mess around with writing their own apps.
You make a valid point concerning the troubling state of the court system and their position on the 5th, but you're misinterpreting US v. Boucher 2. I'm not sure where you got the statement you quoted, but it doesn't appear anywhere in the Sessions opinion. The government's appeal hinged on whether or not the government could compel Boucher to produce an unencrypted version of a drive he'd previously provided access to before the Grand Jury:
Boucher accessed the Z drive of his laptop at the ICE agent's request. The ICE agent viewed the contents of some of the Z drive's files, and ascertained that they may consist of images or videos of child pornography. The Government thus knows of the existence and location of the Z drive and its files. Again providing access to the unencrypted Z drive "adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government's information" about the existence and location of files that may contain incriminating information. Fisher, 425 U.S. at 411.
Slashdot Mirror
It still doesn't have a USB port
Why do you need one? That's a serious question.
With the exception of charging the battery, everything I do with my iPad I do wirelessly. Connecting a cable to it for any reason seems like a step backward.
Perhaps, but he wouldn't fit into an EVA suit, which I think is the main driver behind the height requirement.
Recent job openings at Apple hint that they may in fact be working on a Siri API.
Curiously enough, you can actually have something a lot like this, right now.
We've stopped subscribing to cable/satellite, and now watch everything on an Apple TV. Through iTunes, you can rent (with a budget of $100/month) 20 movies in HD (at $4.99 each), or buy 30 TV episodes (at $2.99 each in HD, if bought individually); or any combination. You get to pick what you want, and you pay only for what you watch, so in months when you're busy with other things you can pay nothing at all, if you like.
Apple did recently remove the option to rent HD television episodes at $1.99, but you can buy full seasons ("season pass") which typically offer decent savings.
That directory also houses applications that are not usually directly invoked by the user, but from another event (apps like Installer, Bluetooth Setup Assistant, Keyboard Setup Assistant, and so forth, most of which are started by taking action within the System Preferences app.)
I'm not certain how you'd invoke Wi-Fi diagnostics, but it might be part of the troubleshooting path which also contains the Network Setup Assistant.
is that it works on Tom's Hardware articles.
They did the exact same thing with iMovie a couple of years ago. They built a completely new product, and let it take over the name of a popular and established but long in the tooth product.
Yes, but they left iMovie HD 6 available for download - for free, if I remember correctly - until the new version of iMovie reached feature parity. The problem here isn't really that FCPX removed features, but that FCP7 is no longer available at all.
They've been updating anti-malware definitions since 10.4. The threats that the built-in system protects against are listed in System/Library/Core Services/CoreTypes.bundle/Contents/Resources/XProtect.plist
I'd probably pay $50/mo for it as long as I wasn't limited to streaming to ONE device at a time
I agree, I'd pay more for more content. I think most of us would. You can, however, stream to more than one device at a time right now. My wife and I do it all the time, either one Apple TV and a computer, or two Apple TVs.
And this why Android will eventually displace IOS as the mobile operating system of choice, those vendors who choose to sell only for Android will be at least 30% less expensive.
I doubt that. Do you actually think that if Amazon sold a book on the iPhone for $10, they'd sell the same book on Android for $7? Why would they give you the three bucks? They'll sell it for the same price on ALL platforms and just keep the extra they make from non-iOS sales.
It's like saying that shooting beer cans off a fence is shooting
Actually there happens to be an applicable word for that - it's called "plinking".
Your point is a good one, though. The fight to keep the meaning of the word "hacker" pure is lost, and has been for some time. I think, though, that given context and knowledge of who's using the word about whom, we'll still be able to use it the way we always have ("Put a 3.2 GHz Phenom into your Linksys router? What a hack!") and let the rest of humanity use it however they will.
My wife doesn't know any of my passwords, and I don't know any of hers. However, I do have an escrow file which she can open in the event of my death which contains them all.
She will need access to banking sites etc. when that happens, so privacy until then, and full disclosure after.
To be fair, one of the reasons the 1911 was used for so long was that there was absolutely nothing wrong with it.
One small issue with moving everything to https is that you need one IP address per domain. That puts a pretty big wrinkle in the many, many servers out there that serve up multiple domains per IP. (Technically, you can do so if you utilize unique ports on the same IP for each served domain, but that breaks the "just works" aspect of port 443).
It's not insurmountable, but it does put more pressure on the already shrinking IPv4 pool. Another reason to hasten the adoption of IPv6, I suppose...
It's just an alternative suggestion. You're obviously free to approach the problem however you like, and as I indicated, I think Click2Flash is a great plugin.
I think you might be surprised, however, how many sites will provide working versions of their sites that don't have Flash elements. Looking at the browser share of all the iOS devices, it's not hard to see why.
Increasing the number of Flash-less browsers will only encourage more web developers to produce sites that don't require Flash, or at minimum, will gracefully degrade when it isn't present.
True. I hadn't considered that aspect, but if you don't have Flash installed at all I suspect that saves a lot of other apps from it. =)
Yeah, I didn't see it until you linked it. =) But he, like me, missed that Adobe has an official uninstaller for Flash, linked by cerberusss here. That's a better way to go.
Also, if you were worried about things that use Air like Pandora One (I was), you needn't. They all work just fine in the absence of Flash.
I didn't say it was a better solution, I said it was an alternative solution. Obviously you're free to do whatever you like, but living without Flash is easier than you might think.
Alternatively, just uninstall Flash. You really don't need it for most of the web these days. (On OSX, it lives in /Library/Internet Plug-ins; you'll want to remove Flash Player.plugin, flashplayer.xpt, and the Shockwave file, I don't remember the name.)
Click2Flash is a great plugin, I used it for months. The problem with it is that it tells sites you have Flash installed; it just takes over for Flash and then releases content to the real plugin when you click on the box. The downside to that is that you prevent the site from sending alternate content which can be sent if your browser reports no Flash plugin.
For those sites that won't work any other way, load them in Chrome, which has an internal Flash renderer. When you're done you can quit Chrome and go back to your regular browser, with which you can write a note to the admin of the site you just visited asking them to get their head our of their ass and provide alternate content.
Yeah, that's what bugs me. IE9 is in beta, so it's much newer than the shipping versions they tested it against. How would it have compared to Firefox 5, or Safari 6, or Opera 11?
TFA strongly implies that the App Store was distributing VLC on its own initiative, not at the behest of the author.
Which is bullshit. VLC didn't show up on the App Store by magic, and it's not Apple that put it there. Someone got an iOS Developer License from Apple, agreed to its terms, and then compiled VLC for iOS, and submitted it for distribution in the App Store.
Now, somone–ostensibly a different someone–who has code in VLC has noticed that it's incompatible and is asking Apple to remove it. Apple has no choice, really, the license doesn't allow it to stay in the App Store, so poof. It's gone.
Now try to figure out how this helps anyone. It isn't good for the users, certainly, since an app they could otherwise get is now gone. I don't see how it helps the developers of VLC; an extremely popular distribution channel is now closed to them. And it doesn't help or harm Apple, really, unless someone is really broken up about not being able to get a frankly redundant video player on their device.
Who submitted the iOS VLC app to the App Store? Apple didn't go looking for VLC so they could have it, someone submitted the application without sufficient regard as to whether or not it could be legally distributed there.
Apple didn't catch it in the review process (we all know how well that works) and now they're being asked to remove it. You say "if Apple chooses to remove VLC from their App Store" as if Apple has a choice. They do not - they're in violation of the license.
This is not an App Store issue. It's an issue with the license of this application being in conflict with the conditions of the App Store. Apple can't fix it without the GPL allowing an exception, or the application authors allowing an exception.
How well did the iphone 4 sell? Genuinely asking: did the antenna issue make the iphone 4 a failure?
Apple sold 14.1 million iPhones in the latest-reported quarter, which is 91% growth over the previous years' quarter. So, it doesn't look like the antenna issue was an issue at all.
you don't have to buy a "coding" license to write hello world on a Mac box
...Unless it was for iPhone development.
Your alternative is having Apple develop a version of XCode for Windows. Given how iTunes and Safari are on Windows compared to their OS X versions, I'll just say "no thanks."
If you're serious about developing for the iOS platform, getting a Mac isn't that large an obstacle. Although, I do think it sucks for the "hobbyist" programmer who'd just like to mess around with writing their own apps.
You make a valid point concerning the troubling state of the court system and their position on the 5th, but you're misinterpreting US v. Boucher 2. I'm not sure where you got the statement you quoted, but it doesn't appear anywhere in the Sessions opinion. The government's appeal hinged on whether or not the government could compel Boucher to produce an unencrypted version of a drive he'd previously provided access to before the Grand Jury:
Boucher accessed the Z drive of his laptop at the ICE agent's request. The ICE agent viewed the contents of some of the Z drive's files, and ascertained that they may consist of images or videos of child pornography. The Government thus knows of the existence and location of the Z drive and its files. Again providing access to the unencrypted Z drive "adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government's information" about the existence and location of files that may contain incriminating information. Fisher, 425 U.S. at 411.