Uh... wouldn't that create irradiated water? Could you even use that water again, once it's been exposed to such high levels of radiation?
Apparently posting about it doesn't require using the product either.
77% of iPhone users would give money again to Apple.
20% of Android users would do the same to any number of manufacturers
Is it any wonder Apple's cleaning up in the mobile industry?
Another great example of this ignorance (and misinformation spread by Apple) is that Mac OSX is virus-free and will stay so, while in fact there have been several recent instances of malware on OSX. The funny thing is that because Apple spreads these lies and users blindly trust them, they also are ignorant and can't see it. It's the classic lalalalala.
Malware != virus, just so we're clear. Do you have any citations to back your claim up about OS X viruses? Didn't think so.
Apple hasn't claimed that OS X will stay virus free; they have just claimed that it's more virus free than Windows. But hey, don't let facts get in the way.
Umm... not to be a spoiler, but you might want to catch up on the series if you think they killed her fiancee. Just sayin'.
I'm sorry - you lost me.
1/100 = 1% of phone calls are dropped with the 3GS. 2/100 = 2% of phone calls are dropped with the 4. Saying it's a "doubling" of the number of dropped calls is misleading - the ratio of a 1% difference scales linearly through the range. If the 3GS dropped 50/100 calls, then the iphone 4 would only drop 51/100 - a 1% change, not a 50% change. So when the ratios are low, it's a problem with the design of the phone, but when we imagine numbers that make the problem look much better for the phone model, it's a problem with the network?
Earlier? How much less than 22 days would you have expected it? And they haven't said they'll cut it off after two months; they said they would "re-evaluate" the possible solutions.
According to their data, they *haven't* done anything wrong. But hey, why use data when you can grind an axe on imagined "facts", right?
The only design flaw they made was putting the gap in an obvious and touchable place, which SJ outright admitted (the whole "X marks the spot" bit). If they'd put that on the top, away from the palm of the hand, I don't think you'd see near the amount of problems.
Really? That's how you read it? 'Cuz the way I read it is that Apple was saying "There are tradeoffs any phone makes. Just because a Blackberry doesn't have a media storm about the antenna doesn't mean that the same problems don't affect them."
I mostly agree with you, but by what measure would you say they've "dragged their feet"? The thing's been out for less than a month. In internet time, that is dragging your feet; in the real world, that's an incredibly short turnaround to come up with a) reliable data for the phenomena; and b) a comprehensive solution to the issue.
Flash doesn't do any of that. H.264, the video codec Flash puts its own wrapper around, delivers all of that stuff. Remove the wrapper, and you've still got the same video stream. The issue isn't that the content is not available in an video format that the iPad can't play, it's that all the websites are slow to catch up on the shift. Give them time, however, and Flash will follow Realplayer into the history books.
The article (and most of the discussion) is about how the record company gives an artist a loan, makes that loan back by collecting 63% of every dollar they make on the album, while still requiring that the band pay back the full amount they loaned them out of the 37% and keeping the copyright over the works. If that's not a crooked scheme, I don't know what is.
I don't see it as a means to justify piracy, but I do see it as a means to question the RIAA when they push for draconian DRM & copyright laws in the name of "protecting the artists." Explain to me how purchasing an album legally helps the artist, if
To put it in software terms, imagine a company that pays funds a group of employees to develop a software application. The company then turns around, sells it for $10mil, keeps $6.3mil off the top, and docks the pay of each of the employees that worked on it for promotion, expenses, sales channels, etc. PLUS docking them for the initial outlay of the cost of developing the software. And when it's all done, the employees don't get to keep the rights to redistribute or sell the software that they developed. Does that seem fair, even if the employees were dumb enough to sign a contract? Doesn't that seem like something labour laws were enacted to combat?
Wait.... the iPad isn't a mainstream hit? It sure looks like it is from here...
"It's the best thing since professional golfers on 'ludes." -- Rick Obidiah
