Apple didn't screw up. In order to put pre-2.0 firmware on an iPhone, you have to remove the locks that prevent it from running on the iPhone. Apple specifically states that you shouldn't put it on an iPhone. Also, anyone who puts a dev OS on their daily phone is additionally just plain stupid.
1. Apple specifically told you not to use it on a iPhone. You decided it didn't belong in the SDK emulator, unlocked it, and put on your iPhone. The fact that this didn't work out well for you is your problem. 2. You can put the proper firmware for a phone, and not the one designed for development, on your iPhone at any time using iTunes. 3. A new firmware is available. The SDK program specifically states that if you don't download the newest SDK from time to time, you will have the old one stop functioning.
"Why should I, as a Windows Admin, have to know precisely how to edit various INI files and the system registry to change settings, when I can just click something in a GUI?"
One of the benefits of Unix systems when it comes to security models is that you MUST understand what the software is doing and how it affects your network to set it up. I personally don't trust black box security devices. I know what happens when I set up TCP wrappers (or their equivalent on the relevant OS), set up ipfw rules for each daemon, then set up filtering software for the logs. When you turn on a GUI "firewall", you can end up with mixed results. Case in point, OS X, whose firewall leaves "necessary" listening services completely open, thus really doing nothing at all.
Regardless, Windows is a bed of nails when it comes to setting up network and file rules. Having to set up the network backwards is standard, because MS's implementation of any given system is usually broken out of the box. On the entire server side, Windows is by no means a point and click affair. If you're try to do it that way, you will end up with something so full of holes and unstable that you would have been better off doing it by hand.
Personally, when dealing with security rules, I prefer the good old fashion written notebook, physically labeled machines, and hand set up. I don't trust check boxes, I don't trust default rule sets. Setting up a secure system is NOT going to be easy. If it is, it's secure as we see with company wide botnets sending spam to 100's of millions of email addresses every day.
I buy all my music off iTunes and eMusic, I'll opt out thank you very much. They way I get my music is much cheaper than this idea. Quite frankly, I can't think of the last time I bought music of a Warner owned label, so they don't deserve a dime of my money.
Even if this was true, and verified independently by many sources.... so what??
There are laws against "bait and switch" pricing in the United States. That's what. Computer error or no computer error, it's their problem they were selling it at a loss, not the consumers. They can be held for this if anyone actually cared enough.
Okay, there are basically two kinds of companies that follow suits like this: Young companies with inexperienced leadership and companies have a valid tarnished image who want their day in court to clear their name or to just scare critics into silence. Experienced leadership understands that maintaining a good image means fixing problems, not hide them. Also, you don't go out of your way to highlight critics. These guys are making the news circles, which is leading people to read about the company history, further tarnishing their image. Not exactly the kind of thing an experienced leader does.
I'm pretty sure those who do seek to actively silence public critics are those who have something to hide, not am image to maintain. If you run the company right, people will rightfully ignore the trolls.
the statements were held to 'fall into the category of crude, satirical hyperbole which, while reflecting the immaturity of the speaker, constitute protected opinion under the First Amendment.'"
Translation for those who don't read legalese: "You guys suck at the intertubes, he's a troll get over it"
But the facts are: "The division responsible for the Xbox 360 video game system swung to a profit on rising sales of games and accessories, which deliver better margins than the console itself. Microsoft said the division is still on track to be profitable in fiscal 2008."
No, their gaming division stopped taking a loss on new sales. That's not the same as making a profit (which is how it's spun). Microsoft has lost at least 4 BILLION dollars (the best numbers I could find were from 3 years ago) on the XBOX line. That's not including the additional estimated $1 Billion+ dollars for the RROD. On the 360 alone they have lost somewhere around a half billion dollars. Eventually, the XBOX line will make a profit, sometime in the next few years. As it is, one can easily say the 360 has not been, in any shape way or form, a profit for Microsoft. It's been such a travesty, I'm honestly surprised the shareholders didn't sue Microsoft to stop them from bleeding value from the company.
It's not a DNS problem. Comcast is actively messing with user internet traffic. They are inserting interrupt packets to disable long term streams. This is the likely cause of the google problems. You gotta understand, when you can access Google News, Google Groups, Gmail, and NOT access the main search page of Google from Comcast, Comcast is doing something fishy. Apparently the black out happens for days at a time. I'm surprised Google hasn't sued yet.
A good friend of mine hasn't been able to consistently access Google's main search page for almost 2 months using Comcast. His ability to get to Google with Comcast is so bad, he's starting using Yahoo so he can do searches. I'm on DSL, I don't have these issues.
You may or may not like a religion, but a religion lays it's cards on the table. It doesn't have secret teachings that you need to join up and achieve some level of roped-in-ness before they will tell you what the secret teachings are
Let me give you one specific case in a accept mainstream religion that shows you are wrong.
Mark 4:10-12 When he was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that 'they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.'"
There's a reason why scholars are agnostic to the validity of religions when talking about them. All religions are cults, but not all cults are religions. Cult is used in popular culture to refer to a religion or group one finds objectionable. Too subjective of a definition. Under those terms, a Muslim could deem Eastern Orthodoxy as a cult. A cult is merely an organized group of people who follow a belief system and rituals. Masons, the local Legion hall, Christianity, Scientology, etc. Whether or not you object to them is irrelevant.
Being forthcoming about the "truth" is irrelevant to something being a Religion. Religion is merely how people answer the ultimate questions of life. No more, no less.
There are several ways to record HDTV with a cable box. 1. Cable card in a computer. Which is essentially building your own cable box, yes you can do that. 2. Via the Firewire Port on said cable box, yes you can do that 3. If you're lazy, go with a provider that includes something like Tivo in it's cable box.
Bigness. The gap is narrowing, but you can still get a bigger TV for less than a smaller monitor. As far as I can tell, more families have a room based off a TV screen than a computer screen.
HDTVs cost more than monitors, because they are monitors with a TV tuner. CRTs, even HD CRTs are disappearing from the market all together. TVs are now more expensive than computer monitors, across the board.
They don't admit they are taking. They have a "not invented here" mentality when it comes to execution, but they definitely follow a "wait 'til the market proves it" mentality when following creativity.
So, they are risk-averse. (Understandable.) They are no creative. (Many companies aren't.) The problem is when they try to take claim, either implicitly or explicitly, for other people's inventions. *That's* the problem.
As much as I would love to see the day when Microsoft loses it's monopoly on the desktop, this is just not true.
Microsoft is not risk adverse in the slightest. They fail, sometimes for a decade, before finding a way to make profit or ditching the market. They follow the "throw enough crap at the wall and some of it might sticks" mentality of figuring out the market. Once they gain control of the market, then they stagnate.
When Microsoft has no real control of a market it's interested in, it will create like no ones business until it finds the magic formula for profit. It's the part that comes after they get a complete foothold that they sometimes have a great time figuring out what to. If MS wasn't so wealthy, they MIGHT be risk adverse. As it is, they are essentially printing money with their desktop control and can waste a few billion here to find another place that lets them get even more Billions.
While I agree, in the usability and feature part of the desktop OS, Microsoft is a follower. They've been stumbling for some time now in that market. That's a VERY narrow market that MS is in. They have their hands in everything (for example Cascading Style Sheets is their idea).
The GIMP has been stumbling along for years upon years, and has never really managed to reach a state of usefulness to designers. However, in a very short period of time, two guys wrote an f---ing amazing shareware "Photoshop substitute" for Mac OS.
Pixelmator is okay. It's big time memory hogging issues, the tools are are unrefined, but for the most part, it's good. It's not good enough to get me away from PS yet, but I suspect if he keeps doing the good job he's doing, it will within a year or so.
I've personally been eying Pixel. I haven't giving it extensive testing yet since the programmer hasn't released the OS X version with a proper Mac GUI (which is promised in the next compile). He's also bothered to compile his code on quite a few operating systems, including some that only have like a dozen desktop users.
Sometimes I wonder about how people think. The invasion of Iraq was planned in the late 90s (Remsfeld, Cheny, Wolfowitz) and executed the moment it was politically possible. Most of the US media fell short on it's responsibility to inform people of the papers written by the architects of the war and the real reasons for the invasion and allowed the administration to lie to the people. Because of this, America was able to fall under the umbrella of belief that somehow Iraq and 9/11 go hand in hand.
After a time, it became a case of liberating people. We have been liberating the hell out of those people for a while now. Killing people is not liberating them. The chaos that has resulted from our invasion is not freedom.
Tversity makes a fantastic media server. With transcode output support for Web (Wii, iPod touch/iPhone, random Cell Phones, etc), UPnP media clients (which includes the PS3 and 360), and pretty much anything that can receive an incoming stream of video and display it on a screen. You stop worrying about formats and compatibility.
Look at Tversity. Transcodes on the fly to multiple destinations (both hardware and software). Full support for the Wii web browser is on it's list. I've done some tests with the h.264 videos on my machine and exporting them to my Wii. It worked as advertised.
The good news is that the HDMI port doesn't have any HDCP, so there aren't any compatibility issues with TVs.
Hate to break it to you, but the lack of HDCP causes issues with some TVs. There's quite a few HDTVs on the market that give a false max resolution over HDMI when there is no HDCP handshake that occurs. Typically, it's 1024x768, though I can be lower than that. Of course, with DVDs that's irrelevant since "upconverting" offers no nothing unless your TV doesn't have an scaler built in. Can't invent resolution that's not there.
It would be easy to point out projects that are not only attractive, but used by a large number of people. The problem with this guys reasoning, the stuff "from the 70s" that the OSS people follow is the stuff you want them to follow. You know, the tested technologies that lead to very high stability. Microsoft is currently the only living vender that I know of that tries to reinvent the wheel as if somehow magically of the mess of code they have will rise something so stellar as to bury all competition.
There's nothing wrong with new. Again, there are many OSS projects that work on very new and solid ideas. Those are too numerous to list
The problem with many OSS projects, in terms of getting grandmas to buy it, install it, and use it, is that the coder is typically done when he/she and their friends can use it. Case in point, Gnome and KDE. Both of them are older than the GUI for OS X and both are light years behind OS X in terms of the grandma test. Both are useable, but have been "nearly desktop ready" for like five+ years. That's a problem.
OSS typically doesn't have a problem with being stuck in the 70s. It's not. If you're going to criticize something, make it valid and don't just blow out of your ass.
it is isotropic (same in all directions), and homogeneous (uniform everywhere). They were primarily made for two reasons: mathematical expediency (this is the simplest sort of non-trivial universe you can have), and this didn't conflict with any observations at the time.
Chemist here, so relativity isn't in my background, but, I remember in physics, doing the math which demonstrates that the stars are NOT equally distributed in the universe. If they were evenly distributed, light intensity would be uniform throughout the universe, which is obviously not true. That basic calculation demonstrates, definitely, that the Universe is neither isotropic nor homogeneous. Perhaps physicists are using a more limited definitions of those terms than I.
That's not completely how it works. When your working on a project, you maintain current results for others to work from. Of course, you don't let them know everything you know, so that you don't lose a coming grant proposal to them, but enough so that you are actually furthering the science before publishing. In the case of unpublished results, those are shown all the time, in a peer review system. Conferences, your web page (getting an email that there's a better way is something you want to have happen), or conversations over coffe. The ultimate goal is publishing. Part of the process requires unpublished peer review to happen. In this case, I'll lay money he is past his final version, it's past or nearly pasted all reviews before publishing, and he's seeking comment on his work. Furthering the science. It's all part of the natural process.
Now if he held a press conference with no intent on publishing, that's when it looks fishy.
You clearly didn't understand my post. You can code for activeX in C++ (along with several other nonsandboxed development environments) and then have that C++ program running over inside the web browser with local user privledges. They did this for internal business networks who, to varying levels of success (usually little to no success), have security rules set up that try to prevent unwanted code from running over the browser. Then they leave that "feature" on for home users, who get owned by random nefarious sites which are set up to create botnets. The ability of IE to run code in a web browser as if it were a local application is why IE is terrible and will NEVER be secure. If you understood how Windows operates in the context of how all other operating systems operate, you would understand why Windows get owned so quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple didn't screw up. In order to put pre-2.0 firmware on an iPhone, you have to remove the locks that prevent it from running on the iPhone. Apple specifically states that you shouldn't put it on an iPhone. Also, anyone who puts a dev OS on their daily phone is additionally just plain stupid.
There are a few things wrong.
1. Apple specifically told you not to use it on a iPhone. You decided it didn't belong in the SDK emulator, unlocked it, and put on your iPhone. The fact that this didn't work out well for you is your problem.
2. You can put the proper firmware for a phone, and not the one designed for development, on your iPhone at any time using iTunes.
3. A new firmware is available. The SDK program specifically states that if you don't download the newest SDK from time to time, you will have the old one stop functioning.
But who's fault is that "hardware X" is not supported on Vista?
The company who put the sticker on the box it came in that said explicitly that the said hardware would work with Vista.
"Why should I, as a Windows Admin, have to know precisely how to edit various INI files and the system registry to change settings, when I can just click something in a GUI?"
One of the benefits of Unix systems when it comes to security models is that you MUST understand what the software is doing and how it affects your network to set it up. I personally don't trust black box security devices. I know what happens when I set up TCP wrappers (or their equivalent on the relevant OS), set up ipfw rules for each daemon, then set up filtering software for the logs. When you turn on a GUI "firewall", you can end up with mixed results. Case in point, OS X, whose firewall leaves "necessary" listening services completely open, thus really doing nothing at all.
Regardless, Windows is a bed of nails when it comes to setting up network and file rules. Having to set up the network backwards is standard, because MS's implementation of any given system is usually broken out of the box. On the entire server side, Windows is by no means a point and click affair. If you're try to do it that way, you will end up with something so full of holes and unstable that you would have been better off doing it by hand.
Personally, when dealing with security rules, I prefer the good old fashion written notebook, physically labeled machines, and hand set up. I don't trust check boxes, I don't trust default rule sets. Setting up a secure system is NOT going to be easy. If it is, it's secure as we see with company wide botnets sending spam to 100's of millions of email addresses every day.
I buy all my music off iTunes and eMusic, I'll opt out thank you very much. They way I get my music is much cheaper than this idea. Quite frankly, I can't think of the last time I bought music of a Warner owned label, so they don't deserve a dime of my money.
You have just described Call of Duty 4 with a team member spectating.
Even if this was true, and verified independently by many sources.... so what??
There are laws against "bait and switch" pricing in the United States. That's what. Computer error or no computer error, it's their problem they were selling it at a loss, not the consumers. They can be held for this if anyone actually cared enough.
Okay, there are basically two kinds of companies that follow suits like this: Young companies with inexperienced leadership and companies have a valid tarnished image who want their day in court to clear their name or to just scare critics into silence. Experienced leadership understands that maintaining a good image means fixing problems, not hide them. Also, you don't go out of your way to highlight critics. These guys are making the news circles, which is leading people to read about the company history, further tarnishing their image. Not exactly the kind of thing an experienced leader does.
I'm pretty sure those who do seek to actively silence public critics are those who have something to hide, not am image to maintain. If you run the company right, people will rightfully ignore the trolls.
the statements were held to 'fall into the category of crude, satirical hyperbole which, while reflecting the immaturity of the speaker, constitute protected opinion under the First Amendment.'"
Translation for those who don't read legalese: "You guys suck at the intertubes, he's a troll get over it"
But the facts are: "The division responsible for the Xbox 360 video game system swung to a profit on rising sales of games and accessories, which deliver better margins than the console itself. Microsoft said the division is still on track to be profitable in fiscal 2008."
No, their gaming division stopped taking a loss on new sales. That's not the same as making a profit (which is how it's spun). Microsoft has lost at least 4 BILLION dollars (the best numbers I could find were from 3 years ago) on the XBOX line. That's not including the additional estimated $1 Billion+ dollars for the RROD. On the 360 alone they have lost somewhere around a half billion dollars. Eventually, the XBOX line will make a profit, sometime in the next few years. As it is, one can easily say the 360 has not been, in any shape way or form, a profit for Microsoft. It's been such a travesty, I'm honestly surprised the shareholders didn't sue Microsoft to stop them from bleeding value from the company.
It's not a DNS problem. Comcast is actively messing with user internet traffic. They are inserting interrupt packets to disable long term streams. This is the likely cause of the google problems. You gotta understand, when you can access Google News, Google Groups, Gmail, and NOT access the main search page of Google from Comcast, Comcast is doing something fishy. Apparently the black out happens for days at a time. I'm surprised Google hasn't sued yet.
A good friend of mine hasn't been able to consistently access Google's main search page for almost 2 months using Comcast. His ability to get to Google with Comcast is so bad, he's starting using Yahoo so he can do searches. I'm on DSL, I don't have these issues.
You may or may not like a religion, but a religion lays it's cards on the table. It doesn't have secret teachings that you need to join up and achieve some level of roped-in-ness before they will tell you what the secret teachings are
Let me give you one specific case in a accept mainstream religion that shows you are wrong.
Mark 4:10-12
When he was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that 'they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.'"
There's a reason why scholars are agnostic to the validity of religions when talking about them. All religions are cults, but not all cults are religions. Cult is used in popular culture to refer to a religion or group one finds objectionable. Too subjective of a definition. Under those terms, a Muslim could deem Eastern Orthodoxy as a cult. A cult is merely an organized group of people who follow a belief system and rituals. Masons, the local Legion hall, Christianity, Scientology, etc. Whether or not you object to them is irrelevant.
Being forthcoming about the "truth" is irrelevant to something being a Religion. Religion is merely how people answer the ultimate questions of life. No more, no less.
There are several ways to record HDTV with a cable box.
1. Cable card in a computer. Which is essentially building your own cable box, yes you can do that.
2. Via the Firewire Port on said cable box, yes you can do that
3. If you're lazy, go with a provider that includes something like Tivo in it's cable box.
Bigness. The gap is narrowing, but you can still get a bigger TV for less than a smaller monitor. As far as I can tell, more families have a room based off a TV screen than a computer screen.
HDTVs cost more than monitors, because they are monitors with a TV tuner. CRTs, even HD CRTs are disappearing from the market all together. TVs are now more expensive than computer monitors, across the board.
They don't admit they are taking. They have a "not invented here" mentality when it comes to execution, but they definitely follow a "wait 'til the market proves it" mentality when following creativity.
So, they are risk-averse. (Understandable.) They are no creative. (Many companies aren't.) The problem is when they try to take claim, either implicitly or explicitly, for other people's inventions. *That's* the problem.
As much as I would love to see the day when Microsoft loses it's monopoly on the desktop, this is just not true.
Microsoft is not risk adverse in the slightest. They fail, sometimes for a decade, before finding a way to make profit or ditching the market. They follow the "throw enough crap at the wall and some of it might sticks" mentality of figuring out the market. Once they gain control of the market, then they stagnate.
When Microsoft has no real control of a market it's interested in, it will create like no ones business until it finds the magic formula for profit. It's the part that comes after they get a complete foothold that they sometimes have a great time figuring out what to. If MS wasn't so wealthy, they MIGHT be risk adverse. As it is, they are essentially printing money with their desktop control and can waste a few billion here to find another place that lets them get even more Billions.
While I agree, in the usability and feature part of the desktop OS, Microsoft is a follower. They've been stumbling for some time now in that market. That's a VERY narrow market that MS is in. They have their hands in everything (for example Cascading Style Sheets is their idea).
The GIMP has been stumbling along for years upon years, and has never really managed to reach a state of usefulness to designers. However, in a very short period of time, two guys wrote an f---ing amazing shareware "Photoshop substitute" for Mac OS.
Pixelmator is okay. It's big time memory hogging issues, the tools are are unrefined, but for the most part, it's good. It's not good enough to get me away from PS yet, but I suspect if he keeps doing the good job he's doing, it will within a year or so.
I've personally been eying Pixel. I haven't giving it extensive testing yet since the programmer hasn't released the OS X version with a proper Mac GUI (which is promised in the next compile). He's also bothered to compile his code on quite a few operating systems, including some that only have like a dozen desktop users.
Sometimes I wonder about how people think. The invasion of Iraq was planned in the late 90s (Remsfeld, Cheny, Wolfowitz) and executed the moment it was politically possible. Most of the US media fell short on it's responsibility to inform people of the papers written by the architects of the war and the real reasons for the invasion and allowed the administration to lie to the people. Because of this, America was able to fall under the umbrella of belief that somehow Iraq and 9/11 go hand in hand.
After a time, it became a case of liberating people. We have been liberating the hell out of those people for a while now. Killing people is not liberating them. The chaos that has resulted from our invasion is not freedom.
Tversity makes a fantastic media server. With transcode output support for Web (Wii, iPod touch/iPhone, random Cell Phones, etc), UPnP media clients (which includes the PS3 and 360), and pretty much anything that can receive an incoming stream of video and display it on a screen. You stop worrying about formats and compatibility.
Look at Tversity. Transcodes on the fly to multiple destinations (both hardware and software). Full support for the Wii web browser is on it's list. I've done some tests with the h.264 videos on my machine and exporting them to my Wii. It worked as advertised.
The good news is that the HDMI port doesn't have any HDCP, so there aren't any compatibility issues with TVs.
Hate to break it to you, but the lack of HDCP causes issues with some TVs. There's quite a few HDTVs on the market that give a false max resolution over HDMI when there is no HDCP handshake that occurs. Typically, it's 1024x768, though I can be lower than that. Of course, with DVDs that's irrelevant since "upconverting" offers no nothing unless your TV doesn't have an scaler built in. Can't invent resolution that's not there.
It would be easy to point out projects that are not only attractive, but used by a large number of people. The problem with this guys reasoning, the stuff "from the 70s" that the OSS people follow is the stuff you want them to follow. You know, the tested technologies that lead to very high stability. Microsoft is currently the only living vender that I know of that tries to reinvent the wheel as if somehow magically of the mess of code they have will rise something so stellar as to bury all competition.
There's nothing wrong with new. Again, there are many OSS projects that work on very new and solid ideas. Those are too numerous to list
The problem with many OSS projects, in terms of getting grandmas to buy it, install it, and use it, is that the coder is typically done when he/she and their friends can use it. Case in point, Gnome and KDE. Both of them are older than the GUI for OS X and both are light years behind OS X in terms of the grandma test. Both are useable, but have been "nearly desktop ready" for like five+ years. That's a problem.
OSS typically doesn't have a problem with being stuck in the 70s. It's not. If you're going to criticize something, make it valid and don't just blow out of your ass.
it is isotropic (same in all directions), and homogeneous (uniform everywhere). They were primarily made for two reasons: mathematical expediency (this is the simplest sort of non-trivial universe you can have), and this didn't conflict with any observations at the time.
Chemist here, so relativity isn't in my background, but, I remember in physics, doing the math which demonstrates that the stars are NOT equally distributed in the universe. If they were evenly distributed, light intensity would be uniform throughout the universe, which is obviously not true. That basic calculation demonstrates, definitely, that the Universe is neither isotropic nor homogeneous. Perhaps physicists are using a more limited definitions of those terms than I.
That's not completely how it works. When your working on a project, you maintain current results for others to work from. Of course, you don't let them know everything you know, so that you don't lose a coming grant proposal to them, but enough so that you are actually furthering the science before publishing. In the case of unpublished results, those are shown all the time, in a peer review system. Conferences, your web page (getting an email that there's a better way is something you want to have happen), or conversations over coffe. The ultimate goal is publishing. Part of the process requires unpublished peer review to happen. In this case, I'll lay money he is past his final version, it's past or nearly pasted all reviews before publishing, and he's seeking comment on his work. Furthering the science. It's all part of the natural process.
Now if he held a press conference with no intent on publishing, that's when it looks fishy.
You clearly didn't understand my post. You can code for activeX in C++ (along with several other nonsandboxed development environments) and then have that C++ program running over inside the web browser with local user privledges. They did this for internal business networks who, to varying levels of success (usually little to no success), have security rules set up that try to prevent unwanted code from running over the browser. Then they leave that "feature" on for home users, who get owned by random nefarious sites which are set up to create botnets. The ability of IE to run code in a web browser as if it were a local application is why IE is terrible and will NEVER be secure. If you understood how Windows operates in the context of how all other operating systems operate, you would understand why Windows get owned so quickly.