Recent Posts
He's very resistant to criticism, even when it's intended to be constructive, because he has his own vision of what his program should be, and won't be swayed from it.Which is not actually bad, as it avoids XY to become bloatware. So that's why we have the choice when it comes to file managers, right?-CWuestefeld (May 04, 2010, 12:34 PM)-Tuxman (May 04, 2010, 01:00 PM)
The basic idea of the license key was to "equalize" the work involved in donating and not donating. After donating to the site, a user gets a single license key which works on all of our programs and lets them run forever (a donation also entitles users to other membership benefits).
If a user chooses not to donate, he/she must sign up and download a free license key which lasts six months, after which the user must return to the site to download another free license key. After a year they are given a permanent license.
The main idea for requiring people to sign up for free license keys was that we wanted to make it actually "easier" and "quicker" to donate than to not donate. In this way, we hoped to remove the effort imbalance that keeps people from going through the work of donating. By making people work a little to get the freeware keys we hoped to make it easier for those with money to donate than to grab the free version, while still putting only a minor inconvenience on those who couldn't afford to (or refuse to donate).
Asking users to sign up to download a free license key had another substantial side benefit, which was that by default such users are signed up to receive our mailing list that goes out twice a month. We do not send out advertisements to this mailing list or sell access to it, but it does give us a chance to let people know about new features on the site and give us a chance to reach potential future donors (users can easily remove themselves from this list if they don't want to be contacted).
viewfinder
viewfinder sounds like if you find a...-PhilB66 (May 03, 2010, 07:03 PM)
Now we all can see what happens if viewfinder way to save up those credits!-cranioscopical (May 03, 2010, 03:24 PM)
Buy now play later!-Deozaan (May 02, 2010, 03:52 PM)
:: stares at his already mountainous buy-now-play-later stack of games ::
I better pass on this one. I haven't even finished Fallout 3 yet.-Innuendo (May 03, 2010, 07:14 AM)
...Depending on who got ahold of it. You say you could do a great deal with it - Okay... - At what age? The one you are now, or the one you were in 1975? (It's a gamble on my part, you could be in your 60s now...Not in my 60s, but in 79 I made a science project in which I made a robot arm that could move up and down... and I had to wire a circuit board and bridge it to my Apple II computer and made a program to allow the user to control it from the keyboard. A few years later... but not much.-Stoic Joker (April 30, 2010, 05:20 PM)
Keep in mind the intention was to share a glimmer of thing to come with the throng of frothing accolades - Not to copy Uber Secret Chip X and rush it into production at competitor Y. Apple created "the Monster" that got off the chain - Gizmodo just gave it a carrot. A is business as usual. Were B the case I'd (still laugh, but) agree with you.No matter what their intent was, they were still doing it by illegal means that they just thought they could get away with. It's not the size of the incident, but the principle behind it. You traffic in stolen goods, you get slammed if caught.-Stoic Joker (April 30, 2010, 05:20 PM)
-Legal fees = a vacuum.Not if it goes like you think it should and nothing happens to them legally. See how that works?-Stoic Joker (April 30, 2010, 05:20 PM)
Accountable for what? Depriving Lord Jobs of a teensy weensy little spark from his next over-the-top release worship revival light show? If they actually had a product... other than their immense marketing hype inducer machine, this would be a total non-issue.-Stoic Joker (April 30, 2010, 05:20 PM)
If you had given a *working* computer to me in 1975, I could have figured out quite a few things without an OS. Give it to someone with a lab and degree... yeah. You don't need an OS to learn quite a bit from the computer. I guarantee if you'd give something like this to IBM the landscape when you got back to 2010 would be a *lot* different. I'm not saying it would be instantaneous, but...So if you take a computer today and take it back to 1975 it would be worth nothing? Yeah... I'd like to see that. Even without the OS, it would still be worth quite a bit,Once again to whom? Back in 75 there was what maybe a dozen or so engineers that would have had a clue what they were looking at - To anyone else on the planet it's a doorstop.-wraith808 (April 30, 2010, 02:14 PM)-Stoic Joker (April 30, 2010, 03:30 PM)
Gizmodo makes money from traffic. You don't think that this story boosted their traffic? Therefore boost in traffic = money = profit on $5k.Gizmodo made more than the $5k on the phone, and the person that sold it made more than the $100 that is speculated. If it wasn't worth more than $100 how do you explain that? But I suppose that makes no difference in calculating worth?
-Stoic Joker (April 30, 2010, 03:30 PM)
All we really have here is a bully (Apple) that's gone crying to the (Fuzz) teacher because they got their bluff called. They got their silly damn phone back - everybody's even - let it go. There's just no profit in destroying Chan's poor ass.-Stoic Joker (April 30, 2010, 03:30 PM)
Hm... So you would consider a car to be working - Even if it did not have an engine - Just because you could toss one in it?
This car would viably be considered "working" by whom exactly?-Stoic Joker (April 30, 2010, 01:06 PM)
So it still worked... they just didn't have an image to restore because iPhone 4.0 OS is not out yet.-wraith808 (April 30, 2010, 10:46 AM)
Except it didn't, because they didn't have the means to make it work. Only Apple did.-Dormouse (April 30, 2010, 10:56 AM)
I don't know about that whole truecrypt thing and it syncing on the parts of files that have changed. I haven't tried syncing anything truly large with the service. Has anyone else done so?-wraith808 (April 30, 2010, 10:39 AM)
I'm not sure about that either. But I saw someone in the comments say that you have to be careful with TrueCrypt and DropBox because the TC volume is only updated after it has been dismounted.
So if you forgot to dismount the volume before you left, you won't have the updated files synced.-Deozaan (April 30, 2010, 12:16 PM)
- Practical .NET2 and C#2 - Much more in-depth information that will give you a better understanding of how C# works internally, and how it interacts with the .Net platform. This is how I got to really understand closures, for example.
-CWuestefeld (April 30, 2010, 11:27 AM)
This iPhone behaves exactly like an iPhone does when connected to a computer, with the proper boot sequence and "connect to iTunes" restore functionality. Xcode and iTunes both see this as an iPhone. Mac OS X's System Profiler also reports this as an iPhone in restore mode, which is a natural consequence of remotely wiping the phone, but report different product identifiers (both CPID and CPRV) than either the 3G or the 3GS.
According to the person who found it, this iPhone was running iPhone OS 4.0 before the iPhone 4.0 announcement. The person was able to play with it and see the iPhone 4.0 features. Then, Apple remotely killed the phone before we got access to it. We were unable to restore because each firmware is device specific—3GS firmware only loads on 3GS devices—and the there are no firmwares available for this unreleased phone. Which is another clue to its authenticity.
a) Gawker/Nick Denton = guilty
b) Jason Chen = guilty (of being gullible)
c) iPhone seller = guilty
d) Using Shield Law defense = lame
e) Gestapo Cops = very lame
For a prototype iPhone that's fully workable and not akin to the used market at all? And has extra features that you won't find in any iPhone? I defy you to find any judge that would value that at less than $100.-wraith808 (April 29, 2010, 09:43 AM)
Except it was quickly not workable at all. So used phone of unknown origin, that doesn't work. Value low.-Dormouse (April 30, 2010, 07:45 AM)
A third button, Remote Wipe, says it "will permanently delete all media and data on your iPhone, restoring it to factory settings. This will not suspend your wireless service. Once wiped, your iPhone will no longer be able to display messages or be located".
Apple's support page notes "If the iPhone or iPod touch is online (turned on and connected to a data network such as Edge, 3G, or Wi-Fi), information deletion begins within seconds, and a confirmation email that the remote wipe has begun is sent to your MobileMe email account. If the iPhone or iPod touch is offline (not turned on or not connected to a data network), the information will be deleted the next time the device is online."
The site also points out, "If you later find your iPhone or iPod touch after it has been erased, you can restore your information by connecting the device to your computer and restoring it from a previous backup using iTunes." The page also warned, "If you don’t expect to later find your iPhone, you should suspend your wireless service through your wireless service provider. If you don’t, you’ll continue to be responsible for any phone calls or other charges incurred."
It's interesting that the police seem to be going after Gizmodo rather than the original finder.-Dormouse (April 29, 2010, 06:00 PM)
Sorry, but I'm going to have to insist on this point. I really don't think that it is up for debate.For a prototype iPhone that's fully workable and not akin to the used market at all? And has extra features that you won't find in any iPhone? I defy you to find any judge that would value that at less than $100.
Value in a legal sense cannot be determined by a single individual/agent/company. If it were, in any given lawsuit, people could value their time at astronomical amounts. However, this doesn't happen, and the courts do not recognize those sorts of claims.
Like I mentioned above, just because you value something, doesn't mean that it actually has that value in the broad sense of the term.-Renegade (April 29, 2010, 09:19 AM)
If I leave something anywhere, and someone sells it, I would feel violated.-wraith808 (April 28, 2010, 07:16 PM)
I agree. But I think this is a little bit different.
For instance, if you lost something and the person who found it tried to return it to you--and you refused to take it back--would that change your opinion about them selling it?-Deozaan (April 28, 2010, 07:55 PM)
This is being used as a reasoning in a lot of posts in this thread... so reference? And even so- why call tech support? Why not call apple and ask for the person? Even after the phone was wiped, he knew the person's name... else why did it appear in the article?-wraith808 (April 29, 2010, 08:35 AM)
I'm not sure that he knew the person's name. All of this came out well after the fact. The articles had the benefit of hindsight. For the specific details, I have not seen anything in depth to support that he knew or did not know the name of the engineer that lost the phone. If anyone has seen that, it would be nice if they could post a link.
But to be honest, I seriously doubt that most people know how to get somebody's name out of a phone. Even if it wasn't wiped quickly, and he had time to check, I don't know that he would have been able to find the guys name.-Renegade (April 29, 2010, 09:19 AM)
During that time, he played with it. It seemed like a normal iPhone. "I thought it was just an iPhone 3GS," he told me in a telephone interview. "It just looked like one. I tried the camera, but it crashed three times." The iPhone didn't seem to have any special features, just two bar codes stuck on its back: 8800601pex1 and N90_DVT_GE4X_0493. Next to the volume keys there was another sticker: iPhone SWE-L200221. Apart from that, just six pages of applications. One of them was Facebook. And there, on the Facebook screen, was the Apple engineer, Gray Powell.
