I wish I could delete that--don't post when you are not feeling well, it's unreadable. Hope anyone that reads it gets the point without getting bogged down in the horrific errors:(/. needs an edit (or at least delete!) feature.
Complexity is not really all that related to size. It's more about readability and predictability--hidden surprises, how long it takes you to figure out what a single line is doing, and how long it takes you to find out what a single method is doing.
So if you use those parameters, Java may actually come out as more readable since javadocs are so well used, the tools tend to bring up docs on over, there are no surprises in the syntax, etc.
I actually enjoy working in it as well. I'm pretty good at factoring and I generally find that people who can code java almost as briefly as ruby or python are often just not trying hard enough.
the difference I found is that in Java I tend to extract lots of stuff as data--things you wouldn't normally consider extracted (like menu structures and other places where most people just code line after line of junk); but in Ruby, people think it's "easier" because ruby makes it easier to embed your data in your code.
Ruby gets fairly close to making it actual data, but since it's still ruby code, you have to.deal_with random_punctuation in what.pretends to_be straight.forward English. At least the java version of the same thing follows a simple, minimal grammar. (Minimal grammar is critical, don't have two ways to do the same thing is what the python people say!)
I don't know about usable, but a spec cannot have a bug. A bug is code that does not meet the spec. If the spec says "BSOD When user presses 7", and the user presses 7, a "Bug" would be a 7 showing up on the screen.
From what I've seen, It takes your compass heading, GPS location and combines tilt information to print text where the tube location should be.
Using the camera's current viewfor a backdrop is just a cute trick that has nothing to do with the rest of the process, but they are basing all this "Augmented Reality" discussion on that little trick.
The fact is, the iPhone has no where near the capability to dissect a picture and actually give you information on what's in it in real time--that would take some serious CPU power and a very restricted set of functionality (like just analyzing a single object like the new XBOX will).
However, it gets people thinking about possibilities and that's all that really matters.
The only way I could possibly interpret the claims are that they are using the ratio of investment:profits per game/movie--still ridiculous because you can't invest 50x more than wow (in new games) and expect your profits to grow 50x.
Along the dumb and repetitive lines, I used to make maps that were ALL wood with the bare minimum required to move and cut my first log. From here on it was just a matter of cutting and cutting and making more cutters (Once I could build the required living spaces)....
you're absolutely fine. I wish more open-source iphone projects would come around, having the example code out there wouldn't hurt.
You might also mention that since it's open source, anyone is able to modify it and sell it as well. In fact, if they want, they can take your source, unmodified, and put it in the store for free or for $20/download!
If you do make the source code available or do not tell people where to find it somewhere in the app itself (since readme files are useless on the iPhone), then I'd say you are grievously abusing the spirit and intent of open source and should be sued into the ground and possibly burned alive:)
Hey, has anyone set up a repository for open source iPhone projects? This would be a great resource for people trying to learn the phone, and might also lead to some great cooperative projects.
It's very natural for a company to look at a problem like this from its own point of view. They are worried about losing customers and money. In theory they could become a free "Battery", having to generate power to provide at night, to have it repaid during the day.
The thing is, this isn't going to happen. Not only that, but it's hard to keep in mind that along with a companies own interests, the interests of the country and humanity in general are important.
Even if electric panels are somewhat subsidized by non-electric customers, that's okay. Let's fix it later when it actually becomes a problem.
Same with road taxes for electric cars... I'll pay an extra penny a year in road/gas taxes to encourage electric car use. When it becomes $100/year, let's re-evaluate.
Every so often when have to take a step back and say "Yeah, in a way it's a little unfair, but it pushes us in the right general direction so let's go with it until it really becomes a problem...
>Being somewhat devils advocatish - what about all those people who find that their CDs stop working after a few years due to small scratches? Should they be allowed to demand free replacement in perpetuity?
This has always bothered me.
Since the record company is saying you aren't supposed to copy music and that they sell you a license to that music, then YES. If your media is destroyed, but you still own a license to it, they absolutely should replace it.
They are essentially thieves who get away with as much as they can. If they could get away from hitting us over the head and taking the cash from our wallets, that's exactly what they would do (and what they MUST do or they aren't treating their stockholders correctly)
Also means that people who get angry at lane splitters are often inappropriatly righteous feeling and ignorant.
I was surprised to have a motorcycle cop explain (traffic school) that it was not only legal, but often required in LA because motorcycles are often air-cooled and physically cannot sit still in a traffic jam at idle in 100 degree weather without overheating.
If this is true, EVERYONE should run screaming to apple, AT&T and their local government officials about how Apple has identified a large security hole in our cellular infrastructure!
Since iPhones (and other phones) ARE jailbreakable, this implies that a few terrorists with phones and cars could take down our countries cellular infrastructure. NOT GOOD.
They need to legalize jailbreaking IMMEDIATELY so that we are able to used the increased attention to force them to fix their faulty cellular infrastructure before it's too late.
I'd rather have some kind hacking their iPhone accidentally bring down a cell tower and get a bug pointed out now than have 10 terrorists bring half the nations communication ability to its knees in a few months!
Do you really not see the flaw in this analogy, or are you just trying to make a point to support a belief?
Anyway, in case you really don't see it, the larger point of the original post was that you don't have the right to force something on someone else. Murder is the most sever of the things you could force on someone else, denying medical treatment less so...
This leads to some pretty large topics like health care and abortion--cases where people don't all agree to the terms (Is it the fetus or the mother who is having their rights violated today?), but regardless of other topics, that's what the original poster meant and your post completely missed.
Not that I really feel the ability to see auras would prove God or psychics or anything, but your conclusion is making an assumption that has no basis.
Just because we can see a dim light, does not mean that a bright one would blind us. It tends to be true due to the way our iris works, but even in bright indirect sunlight we can see dim directed lights, and there is no saying that the iris would filter out all of a dim directed light.
90% of our filtering goes on in our brains anyway. We filter away information we don't think we need--the way you may choose to lighten an image but lose some detail--the detail is still in the image, we've just chosen to view it in a way that doesn't allow us to see it.
So it's possible that your brain could see things that others don't in the same way that a blind man can hear sounds you can't (or more accurately "won't" hear because your brain considers them background and turns them off)
Good points--and I completely agree with most of it. I think nuclear subs are a pretty good idea as well (although I'm a little nervous about all the Russian reactors out there at this point).
But for me that doesn't translate to ground-based generation under the control of an entity that is 100% short-term profit driven.
Also, on another point, your reason to go into space is kind of dubious as well. I fully back space exploration, I think the whole thing is good for economy, science and everything else, but when the world is destroyed, I think it should take the race that destroyed it down with it.
I kind of see it as we've got a run-away cancer eating at a part of your body. It eats and grows so virulently that it destroys the part of the body it feeds on.
You're never saving the cancer that's on the organ, is there really a huge advantage in having it send out little feelers to infect everything else?
Maybe if we could learn to live within our means here first then I'd feel better about our going to other worlds.
Plus the idea of just giving up on the planet because it's doomed is kind of hard-core. You are sentencing everyone here to a pretty horrific death. Space travel will never solve the real problems we face--overpopulation, pollution, resource consumption...
> You think that the government is more honest and accountable then a publicly traded company?
No, I think they are the same entity (at least in America). When I say I don't trust corporate America, I mean both the government and industry combined.
> Because most of us pay for our own electricity bills and would prefer to not have to deal with higher rates or brownouts.
That is such a small percentage of what I have to pay every month, if it's really bothering you that much, why don't you use less power? You'll save a lot more in the long run than you will if a power plant goes nuclear. This is exactly the kind of nonsensical argument that makes me think there is a motivating factor that people don't quite understand behind all this.
In other words, if it was the money, there is a hundred BETTER things you can do--therefore you just posted a justification for a motivation that is either subconscious or you're not willing to share.
My feeling isn't that it's not a good technology, it's that it's balanced enough with the unknowns that a good deal more caution is warranted.
I wonder if that's the issue, that not everyone notices the extends stupid companies will go to in the name of profits.
Here's a question or two: If they met the current requirements set out by the government, would you allow Microsoft or the RIAA to run a power plant and just assume they wouldn't try the profit-maximizing tricks they tried in the past? Would you just assume that they recognize that bending the laws and finding loopholes can apply to all the other parts of their business, but not their power plant? Would you assume that, as mangers vied for better salaries and promotions through cost cutting, nobody would find a cheaper way to run the plant through some loophole in the regulations? (Or do you assume the government is so good that there are no loopholes in the regulations?)
From your description, I'd expect you to be as adamant about the importance of bringing light rail to your community as a nuclear power plant. Would that be accurate?
That sounds more believable than anything I've heard so far--makes sense as to why people would get emotional about it--although I don't think it's as clear cut as you think. Your willingness to whole-heartedly and blindly trust our government and industry the same people who brought you The Financial Crash through the inability to think or understand history, blind belief & faith in a theoretical financial system that has ALWAYS been known to have flaws (free market), greed and basic thievery... seems a little naive.
But I don't doubt the technological problems are solvable, and I recognize that there is a drive in engineers to factor out or ignore the human part of the equation with the assumption that it's solvable since if we engineers put ourselves in their positions, WE could solve it easily.
I understand all the listed reasons (and don't disagree with them), but none of that inspires me with the passion to advocate (and in fact, I still think they are fairly dangerous in the wrong hands--and I can think of no wronger hands than a corporation interested in profits, we've all seen what damage they are willing to do in the name of profits)
So do you have the same passion for all green issues? I mean, this isn't something you can do anything about (beyond advocating) so even if you were fully , but do you drive an electric car with solar panels on your house? Are you adamant about recycling?
I only ask because although the green motivation is logical, it doesn't usually seem to motivate the same type of person. In fact, many who are constantly green are not behind nuclear power even knowing the environmental benefits.
Perhaps I should be more excited and motivated about it and I'm confused why I'm not.
Sometimes I think it might be seeing the future in a certain way (through sci-fi?) and being disappointed that we can't seem to get there (this bugs me a little at times). Or perhaps they believe that this will actually save them an amazing amount of money somehow--which I can't see, it's not like gas stations lower their prices when oil gets cheaper, they just make more money.
So it's good. Maybe as good as undersea cities or sustaining open spaces and forests.
But what makes it so personal that a person might adamantly support it every time the subject comes up? Something about this topic incites the same level of passion as a discussion on abortion or gun control (both of which have a personal effect on those on either side of the argument).
I'm kind of neutral about the whole subject. Neat tech, but trusting corporations is not in my nature.
Also, when compared to wind and solar, Nuclear is the one power source that allow corporations to retain control of power generation.
But balancing that is the fact that it's a pretty continuous source of energy...
What I'd really like to understand (I always ask this and I've never gotten an answer) is why some people are so for it. They aren't going to make money off it, overall it will not save them money (Even those of us who live exclusively off dams don't have THAT much of a money savings)...
I can understand people being really against it. Fear of the unknown, lack of understanding, history (quite a few people have died in the past)
I can also understanding someone being somewhat for it (I'd be tempted to vote for one in my city, although the last one here was a complete cluster-fsck) but where does one get the motivation for the positive passion that this topic so often seems to create?
I wasn't really talking about this as a tool for the general public, I was saying that if I had that, I'd feel that I could make myself safe--as is I don't feel there is any way to be sure of any platform out there (with the possible exception of a system protected by a complete tripwire setup)
I was thinking something along this line--it would be nice to have a file system where all modifications were stored on a second partition on the hard disk and the primary partition was read-only (Preferably physically through a switch), including the boot sector.
On ever boot, the data in the "writable" partition is destroyed before the first write/read ever takes place.
A specific command could copy changes over in order to update the writable partition. This would be done during the shutdown process and a list of all changes could be reviewed before flipping the switch to make your drive writable.
For normal usage, such a system would be easy to use, the only difficulty would be when you wanted it updated, and even then it's not too bad. It is somewhat vulnerable when doing a "Save state" operation to a very specific targeted attack, but even this could be mitigated.
(For instance, you could have to go through a full reboot and boot off the protected partition and have IT display the changes before actually copying them over to the protected drive. I think that would make it 100% secure if you knew how to review the change list properly)
Anti-virus would also be pretty easily replaced by code that just analyzes the change list before you are able to update your main partition.
I suppose there could even be a third partition that you could never run code off that could store cookies and stuff like that if you don't want to always lose your browser history. Might add a little hole for scripting, but still pretty close to 100% safe.
$30 is pretty much my limit--so I play a lot on my DS now which has nearly all its games in the 20-35 range.
Also I'm sure some people are just messing with their iPhone.
I'm not saying that they compare in quality or graphics or anything--more that graphics are overrated. Currently I'm playing "Dark Spire", virtually NO graphics, old school wizardry style game. Runs about $20 in game stores and comes with a music sound track. Why the hell not?
Slashdot Mirror
I wish I could delete that--don't post when you are not feeling well, it's unreadable. Hope anyone that reads it gets the point without getting bogged down in the horrific errors :( /. needs an edit (or at least delete!) feature.
Complexity is not really all that related to size. It's more about readability and predictability--hidden surprises, how long it takes you to figure out what a single line is doing, and how long it takes you to find out what a single method is doing.
So if you use those parameters, Java may actually come out as more readable since javadocs are so well used, the tools tend to bring up docs on over, there are no surprises in the syntax, etc.
I actually enjoy working in it as well. I'm pretty good at factoring and I generally find that people who can code java almost as briefly as ruby or python are often just not trying hard enough.
the difference I found is that in Java I tend to extract lots of stuff as data--things you wouldn't normally consider extracted (like menu structures and other places where most people just code line after line of junk); but in Ruby, people think it's "easier" because ruby makes it easier to embed your data in your code.
Ruby gets fairly close to making it actual data, but since it's still ruby code, you have to.deal_with random_punctuation in what.pretends to_be straight.forward English. At least the java version of the same thing follows a simple, minimal grammar. (Minimal grammar is critical, don't have two ways to do the same thing is what the python people say!)
But ruby and python are certainly more fun!
I don't know about usable, but a spec cannot have a bug. A bug is code that does not meet the spec. If the spec says "BSOD When user presses 7", and the user presses 7, a "Bug" would be a 7 showing up on the screen.
From what I've seen, It takes your compass heading, GPS location and combines tilt information to print text where the tube location should be.
Using the camera's current viewfor a backdrop is just a cute trick that has nothing to do with the rest of the process, but they are basing all this "Augmented Reality" discussion on that little trick.
The fact is, the iPhone has no where near the capability to dissect a picture and actually give you information on what's in it in real time--that would take some serious CPU power and a very restricted set of functionality (like just analyzing a single object like the new XBOX will).
However, it gets people thinking about possibilities and that's all that really matters.
The only way I could possibly interpret the claims are that they are using the ratio of investment:profits per game/movie--still ridiculous because you can't invest 50x more than wow (in new games) and expect your profits to grow 50x.
Along the dumb and repetitive lines, I used to make maps that were ALL wood with the bare minimum required to move and cut my first log. From here on it was just a matter of cutting and cutting and making more cutters (Once I could build the required living spaces)....
I don't know why.
you're absolutely fine. I wish more open-source iphone projects would come around, having the example code out there wouldn't hurt.
You might also mention that since it's open source, anyone is able to modify it and sell it as well. In fact, if they want, they can take your source, unmodified, and put it in the store for free or for $20/download!
If you do make the source code available or do not tell people where to find it somewhere in the app itself (since readme files are useless on the iPhone), then I'd say you are grievously abusing the spirit and intent of open source and should be sued into the ground and possibly burned alive :)
Hey, has anyone set up a repository for open source iPhone projects? This would be a great resource for people trying to learn the phone, and might also lead to some great cooperative projects.
It's very natural for a company to look at a problem like this from its own point of view. They are worried about losing customers and money. In theory they could become a free "Battery", having to generate power to provide at night, to have it repaid during the day.
The thing is, this isn't going to happen. Not only that, but it's hard to keep in mind that along with a companies own interests, the interests of the country and humanity in general are important.
Even if electric panels are somewhat subsidized by non-electric customers, that's okay. Let's fix it later when it actually becomes a problem.
Same with road taxes for electric cars... I'll pay an extra penny a year in road/gas taxes to encourage electric car use. When it becomes $100/year, let's re-evaluate.
Every so often when have to take a step back and say "Yeah, in a way it's a little unfair, but it pushes us in the right general direction so let's go with it until it really becomes a problem...
>Being somewhat devils advocatish - what about all those people who find that their CDs stop working after a few years due to small scratches? Should they be allowed to demand free replacement in perpetuity?
This has always bothered me.
Since the record company is saying you aren't supposed to copy music and that they sell you a license to that music, then YES. If your media is destroyed, but you still own a license to it, they absolutely should replace it.
They are essentially thieves who get away with as much as they can. If they could get away from hitting us over the head and taking the cash from our wallets, that's exactly what they would do (and what they MUST do or they aren't treating their stockholders correctly)
Also means that people who get angry at lane splitters are often inappropriatly righteous feeling and ignorant.
I was surprised to have a motorcycle cop explain (traffic school) that it was not only legal, but often required in LA because motorcycles are often air-cooled and physically cannot sit still in a traffic jam at idle in 100 degree weather without overheating.
If this is true, EVERYONE should run screaming to apple, AT&T and their local government officials about how Apple has identified a large security hole in our cellular infrastructure!
Since iPhones (and other phones) ARE jailbreakable, this implies that a few terrorists with phones and cars could take down our countries cellular infrastructure. NOT GOOD.
They need to legalize jailbreaking IMMEDIATELY so that we are able to used the increased attention to force them to fix their faulty cellular infrastructure before it's too late.
I'd rather have some kind hacking their iPhone accidentally bring down a cell tower and get a bug pointed out now than have 10 terrorists bring half the nations communication ability to its knees in a few months!
Do you really not see the flaw in this analogy, or are you just trying to make a point to support a belief?
Anyway, in case you really don't see it, the larger point of the original post was that you don't have the right to force something on someone else. Murder is the most sever of the things you could force on someone else, denying medical treatment less so...
This leads to some pretty large topics like health care and abortion--cases where people don't all agree to the terms (Is it the fetus or the mother who is having their rights violated today?), but regardless of other topics, that's what the original poster meant and your post completely missed.
Not that I really feel the ability to see auras would prove God or psychics or anything, but your conclusion is making an assumption that has no basis.
Just because we can see a dim light, does not mean that a bright one would blind us. It tends to be true due to the way our iris works, but even in bright indirect sunlight we can see dim directed lights, and there is no saying that the iris would filter out all of a dim directed light.
90% of our filtering goes on in our brains anyway. We filter away information we don't think we need--the way you may choose to lighten an image but lose some detail--the detail is still in the image, we've just chosen to view it in a way that doesn't allow us to see it.
So it's possible that your brain could see things that others don't in the same way that a blind man can hear sounds you can't (or more accurately "won't" hear because your brain considers them background and turns them off)
Good points--and I completely agree with most of it. I think nuclear subs are a pretty good idea as well (although I'm a little nervous about all the Russian reactors out there at this point).
But for me that doesn't translate to ground-based generation under the control of an entity that is 100% short-term profit driven.
Also, on another point, your reason to go into space is kind of dubious as well. I fully back space exploration, I think the whole thing is good for economy, science and everything else, but when the world is destroyed, I think it should take the race that destroyed it down with it.
I kind of see it as we've got a run-away cancer eating at a part of your body. It eats and grows so virulently that it destroys the part of the body it feeds on.
You're never saving the cancer that's on the organ, is there really a huge advantage in having it send out little feelers to infect everything else?
Maybe if we could learn to live within our means here first then I'd feel better about our going to other worlds.
Plus the idea of just giving up on the planet because it's doomed is kind of hard-core. You are sentencing everyone here to a pretty horrific death. Space travel will never solve the real problems we face--overpopulation, pollution, resource consumption...
> You think that the government is more honest and accountable then a publicly traded company?
No, I think they are the same entity (at least in America). When I say I don't trust corporate America, I mean both the government and industry combined.
> Because most of us pay for our own electricity bills and would prefer to not have to deal with higher rates or brownouts.
That is such a small percentage of what I have to pay every month, if it's really bothering you that much, why don't you use less power? You'll save a lot more in the long run than you will if a power plant goes nuclear. This is exactly the kind of nonsensical argument that makes me think there is a motivating factor that people don't quite understand behind all this.
In other words, if it was the money, there is a hundred BETTER things you can do--therefore you just posted a justification for a motivation that is either subconscious or you're not willing to share.
My feeling isn't that it's not a good technology, it's that it's balanced enough with the unknowns that a good deal more caution is warranted.
I wonder if that's the issue, that not everyone notices the extends stupid companies will go to in the name of profits.
Here's a question or two: If they met the current requirements set out by the government, would you allow Microsoft or the RIAA to run a power plant and just assume they wouldn't try the profit-maximizing tricks they tried in the past? Would you just assume that they recognize that bending the laws and finding loopholes can apply to all the other parts of their business, but not their power plant? Would you assume that, as mangers vied for better salaries and promotions through cost cutting, nobody would find a cheaper way to run the plant through some loophole in the regulations? (Or do you assume the government is so good that there are no loopholes in the regulations?)
From your description, I'd expect you to be as adamant about the importance of bringing light rail to your community as a nuclear power plant. Would that be accurate?
That sounds more believable than anything I've heard so far--makes sense as to why people would get emotional about it--although I don't think it's as clear cut as you think. Your willingness to whole-heartedly and blindly trust our government and industry the same people who brought you The Financial Crash through the inability to think or understand history, blind belief & faith in a theoretical financial system that has ALWAYS been known to have flaws (free market), greed and basic thievery... seems a little naive.
But I don't doubt the technological problems are solvable, and I recognize that there is a drive in engineers to factor out or ignore the human part of the equation with the assumption that it's solvable since if we engineers put ourselves in their positions, WE could solve it easily.
I understand all the listed reasons (and don't disagree with them), but none of that inspires me with the passion to advocate (and in fact, I still think they are fairly dangerous in the wrong hands--and I can think of no wronger hands than a corporation interested in profits, we've all seen what damage they are willing to do in the name of profits)
So do you have the same passion for all green issues? I mean, this isn't something you can do anything about (beyond advocating) so even if you were fully , but do you drive an electric car with solar panels on your house? Are you adamant about recycling?
I only ask because although the green motivation is logical, it doesn't usually seem to motivate the same type of person. In fact, many who are constantly green are not behind nuclear power even knowing the environmental benefits.
Perhaps I should be more excited and motivated about it and I'm confused why I'm not.
Sometimes I think it might be seeing the future in a certain way (through sci-fi?) and being disappointed that we can't seem to get there (this bugs me a little at times). Or perhaps they believe that this will actually save them an amazing amount of money somehow--which I can't see, it's not like gas stations lower their prices when oil gets cheaper, they just make more money.
So it's good. Maybe as good as undersea cities or sustaining open spaces and forests.
But what makes it so personal that a person might adamantly support it every time the subject comes up? Something about this topic incites the same level of passion as a discussion on abortion or gun control (both of which have a personal effect on those on either side of the argument).
I'm kind of neutral about the whole subject. Neat tech, but trusting corporations is not in my nature.
Also, when compared to wind and solar, Nuclear is the one power source that allow corporations to retain control of power generation.
But balancing that is the fact that it's a pretty continuous source of energy...
What I'd really like to understand (I always ask this and I've never gotten an answer) is why some people are so for it. They aren't going to make money off it, overall it will not save them money (Even those of us who live exclusively off dams don't have THAT much of a money savings)...
I can understand people being really against it. Fear of the unknown, lack of understanding, history (quite a few people have died in the past)
I can also understanding someone being somewhat for it (I'd be tempted to vote for one in my city, although the last one here was a complete cluster-fsck) but where does one get the motivation for the positive passion that this topic so often seems to create?
I wasn't really talking about this as a tool for the general public, I was saying that if I had that, I'd feel that I could make myself safe--as is I don't feel there is any way to be sure of any platform out there (with the possible exception of a system protected by a complete tripwire setup)
I was thinking something along this line--it would be nice to have a file system where all modifications were stored on a second partition on the hard disk and the primary partition was read-only (Preferably physically through a switch), including the boot sector.
On ever boot, the data in the "writable" partition is destroyed before the first write/read ever takes place.
A specific command could copy changes over in order to update the writable partition. This would be done during the shutdown process and a list of all changes could be reviewed before flipping the switch to make your drive writable.
For normal usage, such a system would be easy to use, the only difficulty would be when you wanted it updated, and even then it's not too bad. It is somewhat vulnerable when doing a "Save state" operation to a very specific targeted attack, but even this could be mitigated.
(For instance, you could have to go through a full reboot and boot off the protected partition and have IT display the changes before actually copying them over to the protected drive. I think that would make it 100% secure if you knew how to review the change list properly)
Anti-virus would also be pretty easily replaced by code that just analyzes the change list before you are able to update your main partition.
I suppose there could even be a third partition that you could never run code off that could store cookies and stuff like that if you don't want to always lose your browser history. Might add a little hole for scripting, but still pretty close to 100% safe.
Sounds like it emits 75% more of that "Efficient Light" that it produces.
I'm just saying, I could see how the statement could be reduced to something ambiguous.
$30 is pretty much my limit--so I play a lot on my DS now which has nearly all its games in the 20-35 range.
Also I'm sure some people are just messing with their iPhone.
I'm not saying that they compare in quality or graphics or anything--more that graphics are overrated. Currently I'm playing "Dark Spire", virtually NO graphics, old school wizardry style game. Runs about $20 in game stores and comes with a music sound track. Why the hell not?
The Raft was the first thing I thought of too. Don't stand on the cracks between the boards!