I think what they are trying to say is that you still have to get it from somewhere, sideloaded or not. If the ugly patent people do their jobs, they would send legal takedown notices to any place they find has the software. 10 minutes on Google would cover 90% of them. I suppose those places could ignore the notices, but why would they risk that? Alternately, PRC, SCS could simply send a cease and desist to the app maker, preventing any further updates at all, anywhere. Which is what the GP was speaking to in the first place. The fact that it's on iOS remains irrelevant.

Honestly, I would be quite surprised to find a decent pair of headphones (sound and comfort-wise) for less than $100. For less than $50 you can probably get something light and comfy, but it'll be crap for sound quality and isolation. Or you can find something that isolates well, but squeezes your brains out your nose and sounds like the inside of a garbage can. But once you hit the $100 mark, then you start to have some real choices. I've had three pairs of MDR V6's, and for the money, I have yet to find anything close in terms of sound, isolation, and comfort. BUT - Sony has turned the physical *quality* of these headphones into utter garbage. The first pair I had lasted 10 years with pretty hard abuse. The second pair made it 2 years before literally falling apart. They also changed the material used to make the spiral phono cord into that horrid Sony patented TangleMatic crap that got so bad that I finally chopped the damnable thing off and put on my own shorter straight cord, as any 'studio monitor' should have in the first place. My third pair is already dying (cushions) after less than a year, and the cord is getting snipped this weekend.

The sound range on the V6's is incredible for the money, but damnitall, Sony has dropped the ball on quality and that alone makes them a poor choice today.

Any serious photographer is probably going to be shooting camera RAW format, which, with any modern digital camera is going to be at least 16 megs an image or more. This guy says he's shooting 200-300 images *a day*. So 3.2 gigs conservative, to 6.3 gigs with a 10 megapixel sensor. Per day. Upload. On WiFi... And all that while he's out someplace with an unfamiliar/restricted network (hotel, internet cafe etc...).

Yeah, that'll work.

For $150 bucks you can easily get an external 2-3 terabyte USB hard drive. Dump everything to that and deal with it when you get back home. Unless there's some reason why you want/need those photos and files at home before you get there...

Or just a cable TV subscription? Seems like it would have to be the TV side to make *any* sense at all for them.

Why is the government not splitting cable companies in two? One side for TV, and one side for internet - since the two are now in competition with each other.

And when did cable companies start *making* content? Aren't they distributors of content?

Corporations aren't "moral" or "immoral". They are machines for profit. Always. This is why Citizens United was such an outrageous mistake. We gave corporations all the protections and benefits of "people", without the moral regulation that usually comes with them. Corporations like Apple are only doing what corporations do. It's a little like bringing a wild animal into your home and then being angry at them when they bite you. Is biting you wrong? Sure, but that's what wild animals do.

I think what they mean is that it doesn't really change anything. You still can't give your book to a friend, or even lend it out without risking that somewhere along the line it could be pirated and leave you at the sharp end of the law. We *hope* our friends are trustworthy enough, but shit happens. Someone steals your laptop, or a college buddy uses your computer and uploads the book to TPB with your name on it, whatever. Watermarking is dangerous because it makes *you* liable for protecting the copyright of a purchase. If someone steals a physical book from me, then I'm just out a book. If someone steals a watermarked ebook and then distributes it, I could be liable. The problem is that I *shouldn't* be. Theoretically, you can't *prove* that it was me who infringed, even though my name is on the book.

This is a serious shift in copyright. It takes the onus of protection off of copyright holders, and puts it on the reader/user. That seems like a really bad idea from the consumer's point of view.

"learn to logic"? Learn to speak.

Let me "logic" it out for you...

"And what Apple is accused of doing is "allowing games geared at kids to push them to make purchases.""
- false. There's no "pushing" here. If anything it's enticement. But just for the sake of argument, let's say Apple is being accused of this and continue.

  "Apple is no common carrier, Apple exercises control over every app sold through its store."
- true. Focus on the word "control" here.

"And is therefore responsible for the app, including any immoral, unethical or downright illegal inducement of children to enter into financial transactions."
- Oops. This is where the poster steps off the logic train. This is complete assumption. I'm sure you could read through the TOS on the App Store and find numerous paragraphs specifically releasing Apple from all responsibility for the use and content of the Apps they sell. The "control" mentioned earlier applies *only* to the choice to sell or not sell a given app, NOT it's use. That stays completely within the realm of the account holder (notice I did not say 'app user').

I'm sorry you can't keep *your* kids under control, but mine do just fine, thank you very much.

"Exercising control" of all apps, and being "responsible" for the ethical and moral content of those apps is *totally* different. They can allow whatever the hell they want, even selectively. If you sign up, then the onus is on you to decide if the content is morally and ethically "responsible". If said games were targeted *only* at children, you might have a case, but as far as I am aware, Apple makes no distinction other than to possibly rate content upwardly, ie: may contain adult language, etc, which a parent can restrict, even back when the case was filed.

The plaintiff's failure as a parent, does not make Apple guilty. The very act of having an iOS device requires that an adult is involved with a credit-card, and as such, is responsible to monitor said device should they put it in the hands of a "child" who wouldn't know better. You wouldn't hand a loaded gun to a child and then sue the gun manufacturer when the kid blows away your neighbor, or maybe you would.

Having never been in one of these things, and assuming I understand the exploit correctly, couldn't you just have people randomly stand either directly forward, or at a 45 degree angle? If you don't know which position you are going to get, you can't place an object so that it's hidden, yes? A simple change to procedure and problem solved.

Just because the guy choses a USB stick with an Apple logo on it (that's not even made by Apple) doesn't mean it has *anything* to do with Apple or Apple TV. Was he somehow spoofing iTunes accounts?

"The Crossbow Project. There's No Defense Like a Good Offense."

Or, it could just be that WAY fewer people are buying "albums" anymore. Why should we when most of the crap they pass for music these days has one, maybe two songs of any worth per album? The industry used to make huge profits off of the one-hit-wonder, basically selling a single good song for the cost of an entire album. But now that we can get just the single on the cheap, they have lost their scam.

Unless you happen to be using a public keyboard, these are going to be germs from YOUR body. If they were going to be a problem, then they already would be. Washing your OWN hands would be a lot more effective.

Do you seriously believe that if it wasn't Apple, it wouldn't be someone else? That's the epitome of naive.

The fact that they happen to currently be the biggest and baddest on the block means this shouldn't surprise you. Microsoft had its own form of evil, usually just stealing an idea from someone else and getting it to market first. That Apple uses a legal (if marginally unethical) method to do the same thing shouldn't even raise an eyebrow.

Apple is a company. They're in it for the money. Stop treating them like a person and this is all perfectly logical. HTC is a direct competitor. Why would Apple not do everything in its power to hinder or stop them from being a competitor?