Japhey

cpenzone said:

jgreg728 said:

They don't need to make a cheap dongle. Just lower the freaking price of their HD box already. No reason for that 5 year old piece of hardware to still cost anything above $80, let alone $150.

The Apple TV 4K features the A12 which first appears in 2018... so you're right, it's older but it's not 5 years old.  Also, the new remote is bad ass.

GeorgeBMac said:

Perhaps the analogy is:  Amazon is producing an iMac for TV.

That should appeal to a segment of the population who don't want to get involved in cables and technology but simply want to plop it down and start doing what they want to do -- where the most technical piece is how to plug it into the electric outlet.

For myself:   I prefer Apple's approach where the monitor and the audio and video drivers are separated and each can not only reach their highest potential but be replaced as they fail if the user wants to upgrade their technology to current specs.

For myself:  I use an Apple TV driving a high end semi-modern Dolby Atmos home theater system and a 1980's CRT TV.  I'm keeping the 35 year old TV partly because it works and partly because I prefer its more natural & less posterized colors.  But, at some point I'll invest in a new flat screen TV without having to throw out other components.

But for now, I can upgrade the monitor, the speakers, the receiver and the AppleTV as needed and desired to give me the best possible video and sound at the lower possible cost.

Hairygomez said:

Mine show 1.0.276 is this what they came with? Not sure if I should know or care. Is this really important information?

patchythepirate said:

Japhey said:

22july2013 said:

The centre of Apple's promotional images seem to be centered on "the sky," which suggests to me that the rumoured satellite communications is being hinted at here.

And/or the rumored astrophotography capable camera upgrades. Either way, portrait mode video is definitely hinted at, imo. 

There were astrophotography camera rumors? Cool. I really hope Apple creates their own minimalist, mirrorless camera, or teams up with a camera company to do it; the combination of a large sensor with Apple's processing power would be amazing.

maestro64 said:

Japhey said:

mike1 said:

Is he suing his parents as well. They undoubtedly signed all the required releases.

If he didn't pose with the album cover, not a soul in the world would know it was him as a baby.

As usual, AI avoids several pertinent facts of this story. Like, his parents supposedly never signed a release for the photo and they were not compensated for its use. And you’re right, nobody would know, or even care, that he was the baby in the photo if not for him self-promoting the fact since he was 17. Plus, for someone that suffered “lifelong damage”, $150k per defendant (17 of them) seems sort of low considering his attorneys will end up banking a nice chunk of it. 

correction: upon further reading, I found that his father actually received $200 for the photo, the same amount Elden himself was paid when he posed again to mark the 2016 25th anniversary of the album. 

Actually the law suit claims that "his guardian at the time" did not consent for him to be photograph in his birthday suit. It does not say anything about the parents being involved, does that mean someone at the time was taking care of his which were not his parents. I suspect they do not want to lay blame at the feet of the parents. The law suit also claim in the "agreement" to use the image it would not show any private parts and they went ahead and show them anyway. This claim goes against the claim there was no consent given. You can not claim you had some sort of agreement then turn around and say they did not have consent to use the image. The fact he is claiming there was an agreement imply their was consent. 

Also this article is about the fact this image would not be flag with apple image scanning algorithm, it was not about what this kid may or may not have been paid or agreed too. As the article point out images like this are totally legal, artistic nude images are allowed, the problem is who gets to decide what is artistic or what has gone beyond art. Do you want Apple to make that decision or some group of people who believe it their job to rid the world of any images they think child abuse. 

I think this law suite is timely to this discussion about whether Apple should be scanning phone, your computer or file stored on their website looking for objectional materials. Apple it claiming the high road and by saying the only comparing to a known CSAM image data base. How do we know what is in that Database, what good is the database if the real evil people are creating new images not in the database.

Face it this is about getting is name back into the news cycle and some how take advantage of this situate to make money, whether from the law suit or he has something else planned. It like the nipple slip of Janet Jackson at the superbowl, that paid big dividends over the years even those the NFL and others were sued by the FCC for her actions.