Recent Posts
Its threads like these that remind me why I love this site.Now daSHiZZLE has an interesting view on us, I guess.
-Tuxman (May 05, 2010, 09:33 PM)
Fo-shizzle he dizzle.-alivingspirit (May 05, 2010, 11:09 PM)
Wraith, it sounds like you either have a crappy netbook, or a broken/old one.-JavaJones (May 05, 2010, 09:21 PM)
Might goes 9+hrs on battery, about the same as iPad as far as I know. I leave it laying around for weeks not plugged in and it still has basically a full charge.-JavaJones (May 05, 2010, 09:21 PM)
The Kindle's screen is specifically designed for reading though. I don't know if the display technology in the iPad can keep up. (Things like eye-strain and readability are key there.)I read on my iPhone all the time and it's not really a problem other than screen real-estate.-Renegade (May 05, 2010, 09:24 PM)
So is that what you're doing?-wraith808 (May 05, 2010, 01:22 PM)
Ummm...I think 'Stoic' was only trying to insert a little levity into the discussion.
And I'd suspect he is also a very nice person.
-40hz (May 05, 2010, 01:35 PM)
I should have waited to reply since yours summed up everything better anyway in a non-lazy way. Sleasy Pete is a snitch - Who has (he feels) a hankering need for that $4,000... So be bumps into Jims table (a few times), fetches the notebook from the floor (when it falls), and then beats feet down to the local PD to turn in the notebook (of Jims) what he'd "found"...
The Fuzz happily pay Sleasy Pete the $4,000 for the notebook, because it has everything they need to bring down Jim's opperation and be rid of him for good.
Now do you really think that anybody in the DA's office is gonna give a rats ass about Jims complaint that his notebook was stolen?!?
Do you really think Sleasy Pete is going to get arrested for stealing Jims Notebook?!?
Hell No - He'll be way to busy posing for photos with his shiny new Key-to-the-City...-Stoic Joker (May 05, 2010, 12:46 PM)
If you have it or get it, let me know. It would be fun to party up with some fellow DC members.-Deozaan (April 29, 2010, 09:57 PM)
California law, like the law of every other state, provides that if you find lost property and know who the owner is, yet fail to make reasonable efforts to return it, you’re guilty of theft.
In this case, not only did Mr. Hogan reportedly not make reasonable efforts to return the lost property to Apple, but he allegedly engaged what is commonly called a “fence” to contact various technology blogs offering to sell the phone to the highest bidder.
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)
