jbennardo
Apr 6, 10:59 AM
Any chance we could have a App to showcase all the best Flash Banner adverts?
Oh no, hang on a minute... ;-)
best flash banner... a bit of an oxymoron :p
SHOOT THE DUCK!
Oh no, hang on a minute... ;-)
best flash banner... a bit of an oxymoron :p
SHOOT THE DUCK!
Sedrick
Mar 19, 07:36 AM
Not that they need to change anything, obviously. Keep the same shatter prone design, horrible ergonomics, 3.5" screen and just bolt on the A5 chip and everyone'll still lap it up ;)
This, actually, is my biggest concern: That Apple will just be smug enough to think they don't need to do anything with the design.
This, actually, is my biggest concern: That Apple will just be smug enough to think they don't need to do anything with the design.
Anonymous Freak
Oct 11, 12:12 PM
I'm not sure where you got those criteria... but those aren't the criteria for which story make the first page.
Readers aren't asked to blindly believe page 1 rumors... Whether Page 1 or Page 2, rumors are presented in their context.... with historical context of the sites involved. Engadget generally has pretty low standards regarding rumors - in that they will post whatever they want on their site if they find it remotely interesting -- that being said, I've not seen them post Apple Rumor items using their own sources with any degree of certainty before. As a result, they get this front page spot. If "joerumorblogIveneverheardof.com" posts a rumor from "reliable" sources, it won't even get a mention on Page 2.
arn
From the very top of "Page 2":
Page 2: Uncertain news and links
I always took that as an implication that page 1 rumors were from more reliable sources, and should be considered more likely to be true. I didn't say that they were guaranteed to be true, just that they are more reliable.
You also (used to, at least, I can't see any current stories that do,) have disclaimers on Page 2 stories stating that the sources were unreliable, so that's why they were on Page 2. Again, implying that page 1 rumors were more reliable.
Ever since Macslash went downhill, and the significantly more frequent postings of Mac "news" on page 1, I had taken page 1 to be a "news and reliable rumors" page, while Page 2 was a good old fashioned "random rumors of questionable accuracy" page.
Readers aren't asked to blindly believe page 1 rumors... Whether Page 1 or Page 2, rumors are presented in their context.... with historical context of the sites involved. Engadget generally has pretty low standards regarding rumors - in that they will post whatever they want on their site if they find it remotely interesting -- that being said, I've not seen them post Apple Rumor items using their own sources with any degree of certainty before. As a result, they get this front page spot. If "joerumorblogIveneverheardof.com" posts a rumor from "reliable" sources, it won't even get a mention on Page 2.
arn
From the very top of "Page 2":
Page 2: Uncertain news and links
I always took that as an implication that page 1 rumors were from more reliable sources, and should be considered more likely to be true. I didn't say that they were guaranteed to be true, just that they are more reliable.
You also (used to, at least, I can't see any current stories that do,) have disclaimers on Page 2 stories stating that the sources were unreliable, so that's why they were on Page 2. Again, implying that page 1 rumors were more reliable.
Ever since Macslash went downhill, and the significantly more frequent postings of Mac "news" on page 1, I had taken page 1 to be a "news and reliable rumors" page, while Page 2 was a good old fashioned "random rumors of questionable accuracy" page.
xlight
Aug 1, 02:00 PM
First you bitch about MS then when Apple does the same thing it is not wrong.
Come on ...
Come on ...
more...
Th0ughtcrime
Apr 4, 08:31 AM
Ugh, good luck man...
twoodcc
Aug 11, 07:06 PM
^^ is 200mhz really that important :p
i'm tellin ya, there's something about starting with the number 4.
but it got too hot, and i had to turn it down to 3.98 ghz. not quite 4. hopefully it'll stay at that though
i'm tellin ya, there's something about starting with the number 4.
but it got too hot, and i had to turn it down to 3.98 ghz. not quite 4. hopefully it'll stay at that though
more...
Mousse
Apr 13, 01:27 PM
http://humorpix.com/images/0f1f0056ca26878fc23be02deea2407c/TSA_statistics0-size-600x0.jpg
ZERO plots discovered.:eek: Why not have an automated body scanner that will alert an agent, if something odd pops up? Clearly the current system ain't working.:rolleyes:
ZERO plots discovered.:eek: Why not have an automated body scanner that will alert an agent, if something odd pops up? Clearly the current system ain't working.:rolleyes:
faroZ06
Apr 8, 02:16 PM
I told you the rumor was false. The other article had a really cheapo source...
more...
coder12
May 4, 06:53 AM
:.) It's so beautiful, like a double raaaaiinnboow!!
Anthony T
Apr 16, 09:54 AM
My only question is if the new iPhone will just come in one color/look. I like how there is a choice of white or black with the 3GS, but if they go aluminum, I can't see them making more than one color/look.
more...
John Purple
Jan 10, 07:18 AM
iPhone will be release in Australia within the next month (end of Feb by the latest) only on the Telstra network. Unfortunately Telstra has exclusive rights for the iPhone, so the product will be awesome (e.g. being Apple) but the service provider will be crap....
At my work we got a demo of the iPhone from Telstra for development reasons, we will be supplying data for a few of the services for the iPhone in Australia.
Obviously Apple loves bad providers. In Germany they contracted T-Mobile, a Telekom AG company (not because of bad service ... but because of no service at all :eek: - as experienced in the past) That's THE reason why I don't want an iPhone.
At my work we got a demo of the iPhone from Telstra for development reasons, we will be supplying data for a few of the services for the iPhone in Australia.
Obviously Apple loves bad providers. In Germany they contracted T-Mobile, a Telekom AG company (not because of bad service ... but because of no service at all :eek: - as experienced in the past) That's THE reason why I don't want an iPhone.
Mr. Man
Jan 5, 05:42 PM
so will the link provided be updated to be a direct link to the quicktime movie apple post, becuase i dont want to see anything on here or the apple home page first!
more...
Ugg
Apr 15, 07:06 PM
What is Gay History? History, while interesting, has always struck me as unimportant in educating Children for essential workforce skills. Leave history for Colleges or elective courses.
Wow! I don't think I've ever seen a more freaky Orwellian comment on this forum. Is the only point of education to create little drones for the military-industrial complex?
People who have made history have just been people and gay or straight have never come into it. What does it matter? A stand alone class in college on "gay studies" I would have no problem with. The requirement in public schools to teach gay history is bit absurd.
Those who are gay and feel as if they've been wronged, I feel for them and effort to make it right, but the level of suffering by gay is nothing compared to what black people or women have endured over the centuries. It bothers me a little when gay suffrage is pitted against something like slavery. Just not the same, IMO.
Unless I'm mistaken, gay people can be black, they can also be women, they can also have been slaves. I'm sure there were plenty of gay Chinese who suffered under the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act) Gosh! There might even have been gay slave owners! Or even gay industrialists!
Why is it so wrong to bring the subject up? The entire point of the law is to include it in the relevant subject matter, not to make it an independent class.
You've always been reasonably level headed about such issues, so I can only assume that you were in a hurry and didn't read the article. Please correct me if I'm wrong...
Wow! I don't think I've ever seen a more freaky Orwellian comment on this forum. Is the only point of education to create little drones for the military-industrial complex?
People who have made history have just been people and gay or straight have never come into it. What does it matter? A stand alone class in college on "gay studies" I would have no problem with. The requirement in public schools to teach gay history is bit absurd.
Those who are gay and feel as if they've been wronged, I feel for them and effort to make it right, but the level of suffering by gay is nothing compared to what black people or women have endured over the centuries. It bothers me a little when gay suffrage is pitted against something like slavery. Just not the same, IMO.
Unless I'm mistaken, gay people can be black, they can also be women, they can also have been slaves. I'm sure there were plenty of gay Chinese who suffered under the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act) Gosh! There might even have been gay slave owners! Or even gay industrialists!
Why is it so wrong to bring the subject up? The entire point of the law is to include it in the relevant subject matter, not to make it an independent class.
You've always been reasonably level headed about such issues, so I can only assume that you were in a hurry and didn't read the article. Please correct me if I'm wrong...
mkrishnan
Sep 8, 07:24 AM
It's a bit deeper then that though, he says
******* the police that's how we treat 'em
we buy our way out of jail, but we can't buy freedom
He's not just saying F the police just because they're the police.
Yeah....in case it wasn't obvious just by listening to the song, he's *criticizing* this view point (******* the police) not endorsing it. But I think if people listen to the song that's actually pretty obvious. That entire song is about the frailty and inability of the gangsta' image to make black people feel good about themselves, not an endorsement of that image.
******* the police that's how we treat 'em
we buy our way out of jail, but we can't buy freedom
He's not just saying F the police just because they're the police.
Yeah....in case it wasn't obvious just by listening to the song, he's *criticizing* this view point (******* the police) not endorsing it. But I think if people listen to the song that's actually pretty obvious. That entire song is about the frailty and inability of the gangsta' image to make black people feel good about themselves, not an endorsement of that image.
more...
Les Kern
Apr 25, 02:20 PM
Pbbbt... Looks fake.
JAT
May 2, 11:20 PM
Wow, I finally got a reply! Didn't expect that, I appreciate it. ;)
Sure. That was one of few worthwhile posts in this thread. I just hope this update actually helps. I've been trying to analyze it myself. It seems like 4.2.7 is worse than 4.2.6 for battery life, but not positive.
Sure. That was one of few worthwhile posts in this thread. I just hope this update actually helps. I've been trying to analyze it myself. It seems like 4.2.7 is worse than 4.2.6 for battery life, but not positive.
more...
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
ghostface147
May 2, 09:53 AM
Screenshot fail :) build number in Quicklook titlebar.
Buahahahahaha.....too funny.
Buahahahahaha.....too funny.
Eidorian
Mar 24, 07:36 PM
Says a Windows user. :rolleyes:Your response makes it rather obvious how much thought and research you put into it.
Better luck next time.
Better luck next time.
AidenShaw
Apr 29, 11:36 PM
I see. It's a sequence of versions but they decided to start at a a certain level of windows development or possibly a grouping of versions by category. i always wondered about that.
The internal kernel version ID for Vista is Major.Minor = "6.0".
The next major release after "6.0" would be "7" - hence "Windows 7".
However, Windows 7 is a compatible superset of Windows 6.0 kernel APIs, so Windows 7 uses the kernel version ID of "Windows 6.1". This is so that any software checking the major version sees Vista and 7 as the same version.
The internal kernel version ID for Vista is Major.Minor = "6.0".
The next major release after "6.0" would be "7" - hence "Windows 7".
However, Windows 7 is a compatible superset of Windows 6.0 kernel APIs, so Windows 7 uses the kernel version ID of "Windows 6.1". This is so that any software checking the major version sees Vista and 7 as the same version.
Jaymes
Mar 28, 02:51 PM
What did you think they would do, rummage through all the non-app store apps on the Mac platform? Lol, some people are ridiculous.
Are you new to the design awards? They have existed for years without the App Store. It used to to be that you would submit your app to Apple prior to WWDC. Why would an App Store be required?
Are you new to the design awards? They have existed for years without the App Store. It used to to be that you would submit your app to Apple prior to WWDC. Why would an App Store be required?
andiwm2003
Apr 25, 09:50 PM
if it looks like this, has 16GB, A5, 512MB Ram, a good 5MP camera, the same facetime camera as before I'll upgrade from my 3GS. This is likely to happen anyway. When will it be out? Any guesses in the absence of data?
sn
Apr 26, 04:42 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
I think the image has been played around with a bit but I don't know if that means it's definitely fake. It looks like everything in the image (hand, keyboard) are so brightly lit that the screen on the phone would have to look a lot more glarey/reflective/shiny than that. Unless the new screen is also a lot more matte. But it doesn't look right to me. Or maybe it's paper like a few people have suggested.
Edit, just realised the screen is obviously not more matte after looking at the second picture. I refuse to believe those are the same screens! Definitely suspicious...
I also believe that, as someone has suggested, the handset might be a tad smaller rather that the screen being bigger.
I think the image has been played around with a bit but I don't know if that means it's definitely fake. It looks like everything in the image (hand, keyboard) are so brightly lit that the screen on the phone would have to look a lot more glarey/reflective/shiny than that. Unless the new screen is also a lot more matte. But it doesn't look right to me. Or maybe it's paper like a few people have suggested.
Edit, just realised the screen is obviously not more matte after looking at the second picture. I refuse to believe those are the same screens! Definitely suspicious...
I also believe that, as someone has suggested, the handset might be a tad smaller rather that the screen being bigger.
ohyeahwtvr
Apr 4, 10:34 AM
In the last 4 pages of this forum topic, I think I remember something about you saying you were able to see that persons IP address while they were logging on to xbox live through some program.
well, i don't own an xbox 360 or any console at that.. the last console I've owned is the Nintendo NES :confused: .. I don't know exactly how that program works, but if your able to get an IP address, you can go to http://www.urgentclick.com/address_trace.php
and find out what type of internet they are connecting through, and what company is providing them with internet service. ie: dsl, cable, satellite.
for example.
68.190.xxx.xxx traced to: 68-190-xxx-xxx.dhcp.gldl.ca.charter.com
thats my IP address, it's dhcp (Cable) in glendale, CA. @ Charter communications
at the time the xbox were to connect to XBox Live.. if you get the IP address and run this search, the police would be able to call the internet provider, provide them with the IP in question and a warrant (or whatever is needed), they would be able to give you the perpetrators address.
then just bust down that guys door and the xbox is yours again.
I used to work for comcast communications as a customer service rep, and whenever the police would call in with something regarding theft or IP trace, etc., the process was simple. Literally plug in the IP address into the database and after a simple search, the customers profile would pop up.
if this is done fast enough, you can most likely catch them in the act..
dont know if this has helped or not, or you've probably already tried this, but just thought i'd share my 2cents.
well, i don't own an xbox 360 or any console at that.. the last console I've owned is the Nintendo NES :confused: .. I don't know exactly how that program works, but if your able to get an IP address, you can go to http://www.urgentclick.com/address_trace.php
and find out what type of internet they are connecting through, and what company is providing them with internet service. ie: dsl, cable, satellite.
for example.
68.190.xxx.xxx traced to: 68-190-xxx-xxx.dhcp.gldl.ca.charter.com
thats my IP address, it's dhcp (Cable) in glendale, CA. @ Charter communications
at the time the xbox were to connect to XBox Live.. if you get the IP address and run this search, the police would be able to call the internet provider, provide them with the IP in question and a warrant (or whatever is needed), they would be able to give you the perpetrators address.
then just bust down that guys door and the xbox is yours again.
I used to work for comcast communications as a customer service rep, and whenever the police would call in with something regarding theft or IP trace, etc., the process was simple. Literally plug in the IP address into the database and after a simple search, the customers profile would pop up.
if this is done fast enough, you can most likely catch them in the act..
dont know if this has helped or not, or you've probably already tried this, but just thought i'd share my 2cents.
0 comments:
Post a Comment