It is illegal to compete with iTunes on similiar terms (You can't add DRM to your songs if yo're not Apple).
There are plenty of other music stores using WMA with DRM. Apple don't have exclusive rights to distribute music with DRM. They certainly haven't used their large market share to lock anyone out of the digital music download business.
That's classical kinetic energy. At the speed of light though, you'll need a different formula. You also need to state what fraction of the speed of light you're going at, or else you end up with infinite energy.
It's also good practice to give the mass as 1*10^-5, especially since you've given the velocity in that form. Alternatively, you could use 1e-5 and 2.998e8, as I prefer, especially when typing.
What you should have had (if going at 0.9c and taking c=3e8 ms^-1 for simplicity) is:
KE = gamma*m0*c^2
KE = (1-u^2/c^2)^(-1/2)*m0*c^2
KE = (1-0.9^2)^(-1/2)*1e-5*3e8^2
KE = 0.19^(-1/2)*9e11
KE = 2.29*9e11
KE = 2.06e12 Joules
898800400000 Newtons
9806 or so Newtons Per Ton
1,000,000 tons per MegaTon
20 Megatons per Hydrogen bomb
Energy is measured in Joules and the yield is measured in terms of the mass of TNT that would release the equivalent amount of energy. Most H-bombs would have a yield in the single-digit MT range, or less.
A ton of TNT releases 4.18e9 Joules, therefore a dust mote massing 1/100 of a gram would impacting at 0.9c would do the equivalent damage of about 500 metric tons of TNT. Not pleasant, but not as bad as 80 MT. 1 kg of dust impacting a 0.9c would do the job.
That's a valid argument for FPSes in general, but for Halo it's not because all of that functionality was already in the game before they ported it.
The functionality is there for split-screen, but there the code is running on one machine. Keeping several machines across a network in sync is much harder, especially since there's a lot more stuff going on than there would be in deathmatch/ctf/etc.
I have fun memories though of playing co-op Doom across a couple of Apple LC IIIs (33MHz processors, 8MB RAM). They ran Doom slightly slower than it was supposed to go and you'd have fun with the odd bit of lag across the AppleTalk network. Great excuse for shooting your friend in the back with the shotgun.
Yes, but nothing takes advantage of it because nobody has 2 mice connected to their computer (a catch-22).
I do:^) But that's because I'm still getting used to right-clicking on the Mighty Mouse. For a while it as nice to game with a standard mouse. Much more comfortable with it now.
I can tell you're not a die-hard console fan:) You wouldn't believe the number of people who have tried to argue to me the superiority of a console controller over a keyboard/mouse combo for first-person shooters.
The funny thing is that I prefer everyone to be using console controllers. I have fond memories of Goldeneye. Had a controller hurtled at me when I worked out the respawn order in Basement in a 1v1 match and kept arriving just as my friend had spawned and shot him through the head. Good days. Can't quite compete with a mouse for accuracy though, sadly, even if there is an argument for better manoeuvrability to be made.
Originally all of Halo 2's story line was supposed to be part of Halo, but after Bungie was bought by Microsoft they forced them to rush and make a release for the XBox so they could have a big launch game, splitting Halo into multiple games.
What makes you believe this is what happened?
Also you have to admit that the time between Halo 1 and Halo 2 made no sense (just saying 'oh thats classified soldier' sounds like that they had to change the ending of Halo but couldn't figure out how to fix the mess that was created by the rush).
In what way does it make no sense? The novels seem to explain it fairly well. Why would the game include his rescue when killing Covenant is a much better stimulating experience?
Ah yes. So you did. I'm rather overdue for an eye check up, so maybe this is a sign I should really head down to the opticians.
I would argue that it was laziness, as cooperative multiplayer has been around since DOOM.
There's a much greater level of complexity involved though with more entities such as AI opponents and scripting events to keep track of. It's nowhere near as trivial as Doom was.
They could have at least ported over the split-screen play, which would have still looked better on a PC due to higher resolution graphics.
Given the poor frame framerates people have had to endure, I suspect that it would have been a messy experience. And split-screen would require an additional keyboard and mouse to be plugged in, which gets messy in a rather different way. Could you actually have 2 mice giving separate inputs? If not, then one player would have to use a controller and have a relatively inferior playing experience. May as well be on the Xbox then.
Bungie didn't do the port. And multiplayer play was included. Perhaps you're talking about co-op? In which, do you have any idea how much more complicated it is to do that, with all the scripting that has to be kept synced across a network, rather than just on the same machine? There comes a point when including certain features costs too much in terms f time and money. It's not a case of being lazy.
It wasn't any shorter than a typical FPS these days. Especially if you switch to legendary difficulty. And where did you get the idea that Halo 2 was supposed to be part of Halo?! If you'd said they dropped part of Halo 2 and are saving it for Halo 3, you might have a point, but Halo ended at a very natural point and would have been weird finishing at any point during Halo 2 instead.
My point (although not clear) is the person had one that broke and he has witnessed a 100% failure rate
To talk about a % failure rate when there's only one item is a bit pointless. It's going t be either 100% of 0%. You can't draw conclusions from either.
your statisitical analysis was a complete waste of time
Actually, I was pointing out that you can't do any statistical analysis because there's only one sample i.e. not enough to draw any conclusions from.
and looks like an effort to defend Apple with no backing what so ever.
I defended Apple on the earphones point. On the matter of the cracked plastic, I didn't defend the build quality. I merely stated that 1 sample is insufficient to draw wider conclusions.
The reason I claim you are trying to blindly defend is you keep going on and on about stepping on the headphones but clearly ignore the other two problems the user had that had NOTHING to do with that instance.
If you read my posts, rather than blindly attacking, you will see that I mention more than the earphone incident. In fact, looking at my previous post, I only wrote 1 sentence about the earphones and spent the rest of the time discussing the other problems. I spent half the post discussing the problems you brought up.
Oh and there was only one problem needing addressed, aside from the earphones - the cracked plastic. The issue of the songs from the iTMS not playing was acknowledged by Apple and the shuffle replaced. There are some positives in the way Apple deals with problems. I trust you're not blind to that?
The step wasn't a crushing blow. It was more of a "ooh, I feel something underneath my sock, ouch" on my carpet. I've gone through many headphones throughout the years and they've taken much more abuse than these. So I suppose you could count that as my larger-than-1 sample size of my assessment.
Well, that's a fair point I guess. Bit disappointing. I think to lesson to learn from this is keep your earphones on your table, not in your sock:^)
And I agree with the other poster, I am cheap and I shouldn't expect so much from the included headphones. They worked for a year, they looked cool, that's all I can really ask of them.
Switching sides here, you woudl expect them to last as long as the iPod. Though I find the bass can go on them after a few months. Goes a wee bit crackly instead if there's a reasonable quantity of base at any sort of moderate to loud volume. Rather irritating.
You complain about a sample size of one and then proceed to provide a completely useless comment with a zero sample size.
Your sentence makes zero sense. I wasn't making a claim about the product; I was criticising the previous poster's decision to label an entire product based on a possible flaw in a single sample. If you don't know anything about statistics, don't comment on them. If you do, then stop trolling.
Can you provide a rebuttal that shows they are built to last?
I don't have to. The previous poster claimed that they weren't, based on a single sample. If a manufacturer produces products that in 99.999% of cases are perfect, but one consumer purchases a product that is DOA, then clams that the product is not built to last, then they are clearly in the wrong. 1 sample is too small a dataset. Now it could be that the poster is right, but we can't tell based on 1 sample. Especially when they eel that Apple is responsible for things breaking when they step on them.
That type of input would be very helpful to someone trying to compile some real life feedback on the product.
Then why don't you start a poll?
All I see now is someone had a failure of sort and your comment that says bullshit, it really is good, "trust me"
Are you sure you're looking at the right comment? I made two points in mine. The first was that one sample is insufficient for making a general claim about a product and the second was that breaking earphones by stepping on them isn't bad design by Apple. Where exactly did I claim that Shuffle was good and that my word should simply be trusted? Surely by saying that a sample size of one is inadequate, I would be negating an possibility of someone trusting any claims made by me in isolation?
You can always build a better mouse trap, just as you can always have a design that incorporates a user replaceable battery
You can replace the battery yourself. Admittedly, Apple did not plan things that way. But no-one is ever lied to about it. They preferred to make a smaller (ability to replace would add a bit of weight and volume), slightly tougher design (battery access panels are more easily damaged than a simple surface) and better aesthetic. Whether this is worse or better than having a replaceable battery is a matter of opinion rather than objective fact. I am content with Apples choice, but I understand why people would prefer otherwise.
Building a 'better' mousetrap usually invovles compromises in some area.
better physical support for the headphone jack
I've never known anyone to have a problem with the jack. I have, however, seen it commented on a few times on the net. Maybe it's a case of bigger hands, or people using more force than anticipated. If people are having a problem, they probably should have reinforced it better. That said, I haven't heard any complaints for a while now, so maybe it was just older models and they have actually improved matters now.
You mistreated it and then claim Apple didn't design them to last? First off, you are a sample size of one - not much to make an assessment on. Secondly, you stepped on the earphones. That's hardly a design flaw by Apple, is it?
But what's bad is pretending that their take on Christianity is the only valid one. They start from the assumption that Christianity must be tolerant and loving and interpret the Bible from that framework, completely disregarding history and the text on the page. I'm sorry, but reasonable Christians have to simply accept that there are some real atrocities in their religion's history and that there was valid grounding in their holy scriptures for them. Pretending that people like the Inquisitors didn't believe in God is just absurd, to be honest. In the Middle Ages, religion was literally entrenched in everyone's life. You would be hard-pressed to find anyone who exists today who believes as strongly as the peasants, inquisitors, lords or anyone back then did. Those people had unquestioning faith. Saying that they weren't Christians belies a staggering ignorance of history.
To suggest that most or even many of them knew what the Bible says, let alone believed in or acted on it belies a lakc of familiarity with church history, Damien. A pretty big chunk of pastors in the middle ages knew very little about the Bible and when they held a service, it was in Latin, which the overwhelming majority of the populace couldn't understand. People viewed God as a distant figure they could never get close to and relied on monks or clergymen to be holy on their behalf. A lot of corrupt people used this to gain power and prestige for the church. Quite a lot of people in the church, let alone outside it, didn't understand what the Bible teaches. At the time of the Reformation, many clergy didn't even know the 10 Commandments.
These factors: justification by works instead of by faith, corruption in the church, ignorance of the Bible, the inability of the populace to read the Bible for themselves, all contributed a huge amount to the Reformation. Prior to it, it was only really in small pockets around Europe e.g. Irish monasteries, that there was any real knowledge of the Bible, attempt to teach and make it comprehensible to the local populace and a desire to adhere to it.
People in the middle ages may well have believed in god, but in far too many cases, it was not the God of the Bible. And as the Bible itself says, even demons believe. It says the devil has pretty good theology. But it certainly doesn't make him a Christian. It's by their fruits that you will know a Christian. Jesus said that a love for one another would be the mark of his disciples. The early church was characterised by generosity. James lambasts his brothers in Christ for falling down in certain areas and thinking that justification by faith means just believing and not acting.
The Bible is pretty violent. And God does kill or order the deaths of a lot of people. But he promised that would happen if Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If God is just, he must keep his word. We certainly couldn't trust him to save anyone if he broke his word on the first promise he made. And if he is loving, he will see to it that his world is made just, by punishing evil. I understand why you call his actions tyrannical and evil. It springs from the assumption that people don't deserve the fate God gives them. but the bible is entirely self-consistent and portrays God as good because people do deserve what they get. God, as presented in the Bible, can only be evil if you disregard what it says about the glory and worthiness of God, the wrongness of therefore rebelling against him and the appropriateness of the penalty. If you chose to throw that out, then you are simply picking and choosing and may as well throw the whole Bible out, as you are no longer dealing with the God of the Bible.
For a proper philosophical treatment of the issue, you should read Jonathan Edwards on 'The End For Which God Created The World.' You can get it free on the net somewhere as he's been dead for rather a long time now.
As a British citizen, resident in Northern Ireland, I don't view the English as an invading army (given that the British army consists of Scots and Welsh as well, this would be a rather outdated notion) or as occupiers of someone else's country. Much as I enjoy being able to call myself Irish on occasion, I also regard myself as a British citizen.
I'm guessing you're American. Do you regard the United States army as an invading army occupying land belonging to Native Americans? I don't and the wrong committed in the colonising of America happened more recently than the various invasions of Ireland.
having one menu bar at the top of the screen is inappropriate for displays with ~1000 pixels in both directions
Maybe some people find it quicker to hit an effectively infinitely large menubar at the top of the screen, than a small one that could be anywhere on the screen and doesn't necessarily have the right men options that you're looking for. You're stating as an absolute something that is quite clearly preference.
they hate DRM
What's that got to do with Macs and Linux? No-one forces you to use DRM on a Mac. You'd have to be pretty hard line to not even touch a computer by the company that has the least restrictive DRM scheme for music out there and only uses tit to keep record execs happy.
they'd like a whole bunch of software like LaTeX and other Free Software greats bundled
You do know you an get LaTeX and free software for the Mac, right? And that some great apps come bundled with it? And that a lot of apps you might use on Linux can be run in the X11 environment on the Mac?
they know how a computer works
Now you've either given away that you're a troll, or you said something in anger that you now realise was a mistake. In what way does using a Mac preclude you from knowing how a computer works?
Now, the rest of your points were quite reasonable, s why go and spoil them with a bunch of statements that make it look like you're trolling?
When did they remove BIOS? Macs have never used BIOS. People haven't bought a computer that Apple have come round and pulled a chip out of. They designed a computer that doesn't use BIOS... just like all the other computers they've been designing. In what sense can they be said to have removed something that was never there in the first place?
The facts are that iTunes might be 80% of the online market but it doesn't matter.
Of course. Having 80% of the market you're competing in is completely insignificant.
That is a tiny segment of the market. Most people who are buying MP3 players are ripping music from their new CD's, their old CD's, and their friend's CD's. Backwards compatible doesn't mean crap with apple. They break it every other year anyway. So will MS's DRM.
I don't recall Apple breaking any compatibility. New songs work with old iPods and old songs work with new ones. Where did they break compatibility?
The market doesn't have any clear winner YET for a DRM for music. Until it does it is pretty lame of anybody to say that FairPlay is the standard (it isn't. not even close)
Yes, when you have 80% of the market, a vast gulf still lies between you and being the standard.
Out of curiosity, what kind of dominance would you require to say that they are the standard, and how does this compare to other markets with established standards?
As of today, the standard and vast majority of music which is being played on mp3 players (including ipods) are DRM free ripped music from CD's. Period.
What has that got to do with what the DRM standard is? Most people drive their cars to work, but that doesn't mean we don't know the standard number of wheels on bikes that are ridden to work.
Sounds proper for an Abondoned World Simulator, but not for a first person shooter. I'm sure it adds to the cinamtics, but it sure didn't add to the fun.
Depends on what you're after I guess. I liked the atmosphere,t he way you could be wandering round admiring the view one moment, then come across a nice little firefight between some trapped marines and some bloodthirsty Covenant the next. If you want non-stop action, then I can see why it wouldn't appeal. There was more of that in Halo 2, largely because of what I view as a slight over-use of vehicles.
It's a shame you only got to play the first 3 levels. I think you might have liked the 4th and 6th a bit better. 4th opens with a 'Saving Private Ryan' beaches of Normandy-esque assault on a Covenant position, while 6th really milks the atmosphere, with you exploring a very wet swamp in pouring rain, before coming across an abandoned installation. It might not be what you were looking for, but I think that you would agree that in terms of atmosphere, it is very well executed. There was a great 'Aliens' feel to it.
I kept spawning on the roof of the fort where he had a nice clear shot at me every time. A head shot is not possible when your dead the moment you're born. Maby it's possible to change your spawn location, maby not, either way, it adds up to crap game design.
Nt crap game design. More like a crap friend. That map is for more than 2 people. Ideally you really want 6 or more on it. It's unfortunate that you kept spawning in front of his gun. There are quite a few spawn locations - on the basis and off to the side. There should have been time for you to hide in a corner, behind a rock, drop through the hole in the roof, jump through the teleporter, etc on one of the spawns. Sucks that you kept spawning in the same spot.
I'm not trying to rob you of your fun here, I'm sure you wouldn't like any of the games I've enjoyed.
What makes you think that? I appreciate a fair variety of games. I don't think all FPSes need to be constant action for instance:^)
You move like a piece of clay in low gravity, but the bad guys do not.
You can outrun the badguys, so that's not quite accurate.
Most of the weapons work exactly the same, aside from the major deviations such as sniper riffles. The weapons were not so bad, but were nothing to bother noting.
That's an absurd claim. The weapons have vewry different roles. There's a rocket launcher, sniper rifle, shotgun for closequarters, a high-powered pistol with scope, a low powered, inaccurate assault rifle for mowing down grunts, plasma rifle which stuns people, plasma pistol which has rubbish single shots, but can be charged up to knock out someone's shields instantly, the needler which fires slow homing shards which explode if enough embed themselves int he target and of course there's the grenades, one of which sticks to people, while the other just bounces normally. Bullets can be used to kill people with headshots, while plasma weapons are great at taking down shields. The variety in the weapons was one of the great joys of the game.
The largest problem was the level design.
They were scenic with a real sense of being on an abandoned world. The latter half was basically a repetition of the first half, but in reverse. Personally, I had no problem with that since there were enough chages in where to go and the enemies you faced to make it acceptable. The Library though was a hideous level.
Well, every one told me that it's the multiplayer that was fantastic, so I gave that a go
From the sound of things, you played what is intended to be a large objective-based team map with just 2 people. Of course that's not going to be very enjoyable. If you play a with a big group though, it's great fun, or if you're on a smaller map.
He parks his vehicle outside of my base, and uses the infinite ammo supply on it to constantly shoot where I am spawning from.
Considering that he can't move while shooting, it would be fairly trivial to go somewhere else and lob a grenade at him, find some rockets, or just headshot him with a pistol. These are fairly obvious tactics really.
You're a little behind the times. My Apple mouse can left-click, right-click, middle-click, 4th-burttn-click, scroll vertically and scroll horizontally.
Actually, there's another difference: Apple put details on their knoweldgebase site on the day of the update and they advertise the MiniStore as one of the big features of the update. They're pretty open about what it does and it should be obvious to anyone who gives it any thought that they Store must require some sort of communication. By contrast, Sony denied what they were doing, in spite of the evidence. Given Apple's openness, surely they deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their statement that they don' collect the data?
But it's not just 'phoning home.' It's sending a little bit of info about track you just clicked on so that it can recommend similar music to you It doesn't to it behind your back. It can easily be turned off. And no personal information about you is being collected. This is nowhere close to being in the same league as spyware or the antics that Sony have got up to. What exactly do you see as being malicious in their actions.
The only established fact is that when MiniStore is on Apple collects data on the music you're playing.
From the article (emphasis mine):
An Apple spokesman (reliable word has it that it was Steve Jobs himself) told MacWorld that Apple discards the personal information that the iTunes Ministore transmits to Apple while you use iTunes. [...] Apple tells us that the information is not actually being collected.
Until today there was not even a statement by Apple as to what was done with the data, aside from the obvious. These are reasonable questions to ask.
You didn't ask a question; you made an accusation. And you didn't make it before the announcement; you made it after. So rather than question them before the facts were known (reasonable thing to do), you accused them after they had released the facts (unreasonable).
They are not at all in opposition to the established facts.
If you think that claiming they collect data does not stand in opposition to their statement that they don't, then I must question your logic.
Where do they get the data to correlate songs you're listening to with songs you might like, BTW?
They check the artists name and see if they have any other music by the same artists. They also look at their logs of what people have bought from the iTMS and see what people who bought from that artists also bought. I imagine that they use exactly the same code as the part of the iTMS that says 'Listens also bought' when you view an album. That feature has been there for quite a long tie now and I don' recall anyone ever complaining. In facts most shopping sites would do that e.g. Amazon, play.com.
I don't believe I'm reading this. Sony said that they weren't collecting the information sent back from their player software and nobody believed a word they said.
Apple is not Sony. The difference in their stance on DRM alone should be an indication that they're not half as likely to mess about with customers.
Of course they are storing it, why wouldn't they? Nobody outside of Apple can prove otherwise.
If they can't prove it, then they shouldn't claim it. There's no reason to assume they're lying. If you're goign to decide that they're guilty, then why be surprised if they transmit some data and why bother to comment about a story where they say they're innocent? You're clearly not interested in discussion.
I've nothing against Apple but this new version of iTunes is Spyware pure and simple.
You're being paranoid. One click turns off the MiniStore ad even when it's on, they don't collect the data. iTunes does the minimum necessary to make recommendations to you. Calling it spyware is hyperbole and makes a poor case against genuine spyware.
Slashdot Mirror
There are plenty of other music stores using WMA with DRM. Apple don't have exclusive rights to distribute music with DRM. They certainly haven't used their large market share to lock anyone out of the digital music download business.
That's classical kinetic energy. At the speed of light though, you'll need a different formula. You also need to state what fraction of the speed of light you're going at, or else you end up with infinite energy.
It's also good practice to give the mass as 1*10^-5, especially since you've given the velocity in that form. Alternatively, you could use 1e-5 and 2.998e8, as I prefer, especially when typing.
What you should have had (if going at 0.9c and taking c=3e8 ms^-1 for simplicity) is:
KE = gamma*m0*c^2
KE = (1-u^2/c^2)^(-1/2)*m0*c^2
KE = (1-0.9^2)^(-1/2)*1e-5*3e8^2
KE = 0.19^(-1/2)*9e11
KE = 2.29*9e11
KE = 2.06e12 Joules
Energy is measured in Joules and the yield is measured in terms of the mass of TNT that would release the equivalent amount of energy. Most H-bombs would have a yield in the single-digit MT range, or less.
A ton of TNT releases 4.18e9 Joules, therefore a dust mote massing 1/100 of a gram would impacting at 0.9c would do the equivalent damage of about 500 metric tons of TNT. Not pleasant, but not as bad as 80 MT. 1 kg of dust impacting a 0.9c would do the job.
The functionality is there for split-screen, but there the code is running on one machine. Keeping several machines across a network in sync is much harder, especially since there's a lot more stuff going on than there would be in deathmatch/ctf/etc.
I have fun memories though of playing co-op Doom across a couple of Apple LC IIIs (33MHz processors, 8MB RAM). They ran Doom slightly slower than it was supposed to go and you'd have fun with the odd bit of lag across the AppleTalk network. Great excuse for shooting your friend in the back with the shotgun.
I do :^) But that's because I'm still getting used to right-clicking on the Mighty Mouse. For a while it as nice to game with a standard mouse. Much more comfortable with it now.
The funny thing is that I prefer everyone to be using console controllers. I have fond memories of Goldeneye. Had a controller hurtled at me when I worked out the respawn order in Basement in a 1v1 match and kept arriving just as my friend had spawned and shot him through the head. Good days. Can't quite compete with a mouse for accuracy though, sadly, even if there is an argument for better manoeuvrability to be made.
What makes you believe this is what happened?
In what way does it make no sense? The novels seem to explain it fairly well. Why would the game include his rescue when killing Covenant is a much better stimulating experience?
Ah yes. So you did. I'm rather overdue for an eye check up, so maybe this is a sign I should really head down to the opticians.
There's a much greater level of complexity involved though with more entities such as AI opponents and scripting events to keep track of. It's nowhere near as trivial as Doom was.
Given the poor frame framerates people have had to endure, I suspect that it would have been a messy experience. And split-screen would require an additional keyboard and mouse to be plugged in, which gets messy in a rather different way. Could you actually have 2 mice giving separate inputs? If not, then one player would have to use a controller and have a relatively inferior playing experience. May as well be on the Xbox then.
Bungie didn't do the port. And multiplayer play was included. Perhaps you're talking about co-op? In which, do you have any idea how much more complicated it is to do that, with all the scripting that has to be kept synced across a network, rather than just on the same machine? There comes a point when including certain features costs too much in terms f time and money. It's not a case of being lazy.
It wasn't any shorter than a typical FPS these days. Especially if you switch to legendary difficulty. And where did you get the idea that Halo 2 was supposed to be part of Halo?! If you'd said they dropped part of Halo 2 and are saving it for Halo 3, you might have a point, but Halo ended at a very natural point and would have been weird finishing at any point during Halo 2 instead.
To talk about a % failure rate when there's only one item is a bit pointless. It's going t be either 100% of 0%. You can't draw conclusions from either.
Actually, I was pointing out that you can't do any statistical analysis because there's only one sample i.e. not enough to draw any conclusions from.
I defended Apple on the earphones point. On the matter of the cracked plastic, I didn't defend the build quality. I merely stated that 1 sample is insufficient to draw wider conclusions.
If you read my posts, rather than blindly attacking, you will see that I mention more than the earphone incident. In fact, looking at my previous post, I only wrote 1 sentence about the earphones and spent the rest of the time discussing the other problems. I spent half the post discussing the problems you brought up.
Oh and there was only one problem needing addressed, aside from the earphones - the cracked plastic. The issue of the songs from the iTMS not playing was acknowledged by Apple and the shuffle replaced. There are some positives in the way Apple deals with problems. I trust you're not blind to that?
Well, that's a fair point I guess. Bit disappointing. I think to lesson to learn from this is keep your earphones on your table, not in your sock :^)
Switching sides here, you woudl expect them to last as long as the iPod. Though I find the bass can go on them after a few months. Goes a wee bit crackly instead if there's a reasonable quantity of base at any sort of moderate to loud volume. Rather irritating.
Your sentence makes zero sense. I wasn't making a claim about the product; I was criticising the previous poster's decision to label an entire product based on a possible flaw in a single sample. If you don't know anything about statistics, don't comment on them. If you do, then stop trolling.
I don't have to. The previous poster claimed that they weren't, based on a single sample. If a manufacturer produces products that in 99.999% of cases are perfect, but one consumer purchases a product that is DOA, then clams that the product is not built to last, then they are clearly in the wrong. 1 sample is too small a dataset. Now it could be that the poster is right, but we can't tell based on 1 sample. Especially when they eel that Apple is responsible for things breaking when they step on them.
Then why don't you start a poll?
Are you sure you're looking at the right comment? I made two points in mine. The first was that one sample is insufficient for making a general claim about a product and the second was that breaking earphones by stepping on them isn't bad design by Apple. Where exactly did I claim that Shuffle was good and that my word should simply be trusted? Surely by saying that a sample size of one is inadequate, I would be negating an possibility of someone trusting any claims made by me in isolation?
You can replace the battery yourself. Admittedly, Apple did not plan things that way. But no-one is ever lied to about it. They preferred to make a smaller (ability to replace would add a bit of weight and volume), slightly tougher design (battery access panels are more easily damaged than a simple surface) and better aesthetic. Whether this is worse or better than having a replaceable battery is a matter of opinion rather than objective fact. I am content with Apples choice, but I understand why people would prefer otherwise.
Building a 'better' mousetrap usually invovles compromises in some area.
I've never known anyone to have a problem with the jack. I have, however, seen it commented on a few times on the net. Maybe it's a case of bigger hands, or people using more force than anticipated. If people are having a problem, they probably should have reinforced it better. That said, I haven't heard any complaints for a while now, so maybe it was just older models and they have actually improved matters now.
You mistreated it and then claim Apple didn't design them to last? First off, you are a sample size of one - not much to make an assessment on. Secondly, you stepped on the earphones. That's hardly a design flaw by Apple, is it?
To suggest that most or even many of them knew what the Bible says, let alone believed in or acted on it belies a lakc of familiarity with church history, Damien. A pretty big chunk of pastors in the middle ages knew very little about the Bible and when they held a service, it was in Latin, which the overwhelming majority of the populace couldn't understand. People viewed God as a distant figure they could never get close to and relied on monks or clergymen to be holy on their behalf. A lot of corrupt people used this to gain power and prestige for the church. Quite a lot of people in the church, let alone outside it, didn't understand what the Bible teaches. At the time of the Reformation, many clergy didn't even know the 10 Commandments.
These factors: justification by works instead of by faith, corruption in the church, ignorance of the Bible, the inability of the populace to read the Bible for themselves, all contributed a huge amount to the Reformation. Prior to it, it was only really in small pockets around Europe e.g. Irish monasteries, that there was any real knowledge of the Bible, attempt to teach and make it comprehensible to the local populace and a desire to adhere to it.
People in the middle ages may well have believed in god, but in far too many cases, it was not the God of the Bible. And as the Bible itself says, even demons believe. It says the devil has pretty good theology. But it certainly doesn't make him a Christian. It's by their fruits that you will know a Christian. Jesus said that a love for one another would be the mark of his disciples. The early church was characterised by generosity. James lambasts his brothers in Christ for falling down in certain areas and thinking that justification by faith means just believing and not acting.
The Bible is pretty violent. And God does kill or order the deaths of a lot of people. But he promised that would happen if Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If God is just, he must keep his word. We certainly couldn't trust him to save anyone if he broke his word on the first promise he made. And if he is loving, he will see to it that his world is made just, by punishing evil. I understand why you call his actions tyrannical and evil. It springs from the assumption that people don't deserve the fate God gives them. but the bible is entirely self-consistent and portrays God as good because people do deserve what they get. God, as presented in the Bible, can only be evil if you disregard what it says about the glory and worthiness of God, the wrongness of therefore rebelling against him and the appropriateness of the penalty. If you chose to throw that out, then you are simply picking and choosing and may as well throw the whole Bible out, as you are no longer dealing with the God of the Bible.
For a proper philosophical treatment of the issue, you should read Jonathan Edwards on 'The End For Which God Created The World.' You can get it free on the net somewhere as he's been dead for rather a long time now.
And of course there's no stereotyping or scare-mongering in your posts.
The IRA killed plenty of Catholics and the Loyalists plenty of Protestants. The troubles aren't about religion so much as cultural and nationality.
As a British citizen, resident in Northern Ireland, I don't view the English as an invading army (given that the British army consists of Scots and Welsh as well, this would be a rather outdated notion) or as occupiers of someone else's country. Much as I enjoy being able to call myself Irish on occasion, I also regard myself as a British citizen.
I'm guessing you're American. Do you regard the United States army as an invading army occupying land belonging to Native Americans? I don't and the wrong committed in the colonising of America happened more recently than the various invasions of Ireland.
Maybe some people find it quicker to hit an effectively infinitely large menubar at the top of the screen, than a small one that could be anywhere on the screen and doesn't necessarily have the right men options that you're looking for. You're stating as an absolute something that is quite clearly preference.
What's that got to do with Macs and Linux? No-one forces you to use DRM on a Mac. You'd have to be pretty hard line to not even touch a computer by the company that has the least restrictive DRM scheme for music out there and only uses tit to keep record execs happy.
You do know you an get LaTeX and free software for the Mac, right? And that some great apps come bundled with it? And that a lot of apps you might use on Linux can be run in the X11 environment on the Mac?
Now you've either given away that you're a troll, or you said something in anger that you now realise was a mistake. In what way does using a Mac preclude you from knowing how a computer works?
Now, the rest of your points were quite reasonable, s why go and spoil them with a bunch of statements that make it look like you're trolling?
When did they remove BIOS? Macs have never used BIOS. People haven't bought a computer that Apple have come round and pulled a chip out of. They designed a computer that doesn't use BIOS... just like all the other computers they've been designing. In what sense can they be said to have removed something that was never there in the first place?
Of course. Having 80% of the market you're competing in is completely insignificant.
I don't recall Apple breaking any compatibility. New songs work with old iPods and old songs work with new ones. Where did they break compatibility?
Yes, when you have 80% of the market, a vast gulf still lies between you and being the standard.
Out of curiosity, what kind of dominance would you require to say that they are the standard, and how does this compare to other markets with established standards?
What has that got to do with what the DRM standard is? Most people drive their cars to work, but that doesn't mean we don't know the standard number of wheels on bikes that are ridden to work.
Depends on what you're after I guess. I liked the atmosphere,t he way you could be wandering round admiring the view one moment, then come across a nice little firefight between some trapped marines and some bloodthirsty Covenant the next. If you want non-stop action, then I can see why it wouldn't appeal. There was more of that in Halo 2, largely because of what I view as a slight over-use of vehicles.
It's a shame you only got to play the first 3 levels. I think you might have liked the 4th and 6th a bit better. 4th opens with a 'Saving Private Ryan' beaches of Normandy-esque assault on a Covenant position, while 6th really milks the atmosphere, with you exploring a very wet swamp in pouring rain, before coming across an abandoned installation. It might not be what you were looking for, but I think that you would agree that in terms of atmosphere, it is very well executed. There was a great 'Aliens' feel to it.
You can outrun the badguys, so that's not quite accurate.
That's an absurd claim. The weapons have vewry different roles. There's a rocket launcher, sniper rifle, shotgun for closequarters, a high-powered pistol with scope, a low powered, inaccurate assault rifle for mowing down grunts, plasma rifle which stuns people, plasma pistol which has rubbish single shots, but can be charged up to knock out someone's shields instantly, the needler which fires slow homing shards which explode if enough embed themselves int he target and of course there's the grenades, one of which sticks to people, while the other just bounces normally. Bullets can be used to kill people with headshots, while plasma weapons are great at taking down shields. The variety in the weapons was one of the great joys of the game.
They were scenic with a real sense of being on an abandoned world. The latter half was basically a repetition of the first half, but in reverse. Personally, I had no problem with that since there were enough chages in where to go and the enemies you faced to make it acceptable. The Library though was a hideous level.
From the sound of things, you played what is intended to be a large objective-based team map with just 2 people. Of course that's not going to be very enjoyable. If you play a with a big group though, it's great fun, or if you're on a smaller map.
You're a little behind the times. My Apple mouse can left-click, right-click, middle-click, 4th-burttn-click, scroll vertically and scroll horizontally.
Actually, there's another difference: Apple put details on their knoweldgebase site on the day of the update and they advertise the MiniStore as one of the big features of the update. They're pretty open about what it does and it should be obvious to anyone who gives it any thought that they Store must require some sort of communication. By contrast, Sony denied what they were doing, in spite of the evidence. Given Apple's openness, surely they deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their statement that they don' collect the data?
But it's not just 'phoning home.' It's sending a little bit of info about track you just clicked on so that it can recommend similar music to you It doesn't to it behind your back. It can easily be turned off. And no personal information about you is being collected. This is nowhere close to being in the same league as spyware or the antics that Sony have got up to. What exactly do you see as being malicious in their actions.
From the article (emphasis mine):
An Apple spokesman (reliable word has it that it was Steve Jobs himself) told MacWorld that Apple discards the personal information that the iTunes Ministore transmits to Apple while you use iTunes. [...] Apple tells us that the information is not actually being collected.
You didn't ask a question; you made an accusation. And you didn't make it before the announcement; you made it after. So rather than question them before the facts were known (reasonable thing to do), you accused them after they had released the facts (unreasonable).
If you think that claiming they collect data does not stand in opposition to their statement that they don't, then I must question your logic.
They check the artists name and see if they have any other music by the same artists. They also look at their logs of what people have bought from the iTMS and see what people who bought from that artists also bought. I imagine that they use exactly the same code as the part of the iTMS that says 'Listens also bought' when you view an album. That feature has been there for quite a long tie now and I don' recall anyone ever complaining. In facts most shopping sites would do that e.g. Amazon, play.com.
Apple is not Sony. The difference in their stance on DRM alone should be an indication that they're not half as likely to mess about with customers.
If they can't prove it, then they shouldn't claim it. There's no reason to assume they're lying. If you're goign to decide that they're guilty, then why be surprised if they transmit some data and why bother to comment about a story where they say they're innocent? You're clearly not interested in discussion.
You're being paranoid. One click turns off the MiniStore ad even when it's on, they don't collect the data. iTunes does the minimum necessary to make recommendations to you. Calling it spyware is hyperbole and makes a poor case against genuine spyware.