d.perel
Mar 18, 03:47 PM
Wish he'd do something useful like cracking WMA.
white londe hair with
Blonde Hair
Celebrity Blonde Highlights
Hair painting
londe hair colors with
londe highlight hairstyles up
Blonde Hair With Dark
Hilary Duff#39;s londe hair is
Tyra Banks hair is chestnut in
international hair color
londe hair with lowlights
londe+hair+with+lowlights
highlights and lowlights
quot;Fine highlights around your
Hair Color Highlights And
My Blonde Hair
Hair color can dramatically
londe hair from birth.
appleguy123
Apr 22, 09:55 PM
You're assuming truthful answers.
Potential confounding variables still stand.
Do you have some more reliable source? Mind reading?
We're not making life-altering decisions here, and as such I don't think that it would be too hazardous to assume that the poll takers were being truthful.
By this logic, every poll ever taken is not a reliable source of information.
Potential confounding variables still stand.
Do you have some more reliable source? Mind reading?
We're not making life-altering decisions here, and as such I don't think that it would be too hazardous to assume that the poll takers were being truthful.
By this logic, every poll ever taken is not a reliable source of information.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 12:43 PM
I am religious, however, I have to say there is some sort of motivation inside me to stick to my religion. I can't put my finger on what it is exactly, but there's something there. I'm always looking forward to something for some reason.
Rocketman
Mar 18, 12:25 PM
This is a simple and cheap way for AT&T to address the most abusive users in a way they give themselves the choice.
Why now? It may have iOS 4.3 as a small factor, but the larger factor is uptake on (fully paid) iPad data plans is so brisk and invites more legitimate use of the network, they need to create network capacity fast, before they install more backhaul or towers. This is that way.
A small percentage of users really are using the bulk of variable bandwidth.
Rocketman
Why now? It may have iOS 4.3 as a small factor, but the larger factor is uptake on (fully paid) iPad data plans is so brisk and invites more legitimate use of the network, they need to create network capacity fast, before they install more backhaul or towers. This is that way.
A small percentage of users really are using the bulk of variable bandwidth.
Rocketman
Gelfin
Apr 24, 03:03 PM
In answer to the OP's question, I have long harbored the suspicion (without any clear idea how to test it) that human beings have evolved their penchant for accepting nonsense. On the face of it, accepting that which does not correspond with reality is a very costly behavior. Animals that believe they need to sacrifice part of their food supply should be that much less likely to survive than those without that belief.
My hunch, however, is that the willingness to play along with certain kinds of nonsense games, including religion and other ritualized activities, is a social bonding mechanism in humans so deeply ingrained that it is difficult for us to step outside ourselves and recognize it for a game. One's willingness to play along with the rituals of a culture signifies that his need to be a part of the community is stronger than his need for rational justification. Consenting to accept a manufactured truth is an act of submission. It generates social cohesion and establishes shibboleths. In a way it is a constant background radiation of codependence and enablement permeating human existence.
If I go way too far out on this particular limb, I actually suspect that the ability to prioritize rational justification over social submission is a more recent development than we realize, and that this development is still competing with the old instincts for social cohesion. Perhaps this is the reason that atheists and skeptics are typically considered more objectionable than those with differing religious or supernatural beliefs. Playing the game under slightly different rules seems less dangerous than refusing to play at all.
Think of the undertones of the intuitive stereotype many people have of skeptics: many people automatically imagine a sort of bristly, unfriendly loner who isn't really happy and is always trying to make other people unhappy too. There is really no factual basis for this caricature, and yet it is almost universal. On this account, when we become adults we do not stop playing games of make-believe. Instead we just start taking our games of make-believe very seriously, and our intuitive sense is that someone who rejects our games is rejecting us. Such a person feels untrustworthy in a way we would find hard to justify.
Religions are hardly the only source of this sort of game. I suspect they are everywhere, often too subtle to notice, but religions are by far the largest, oldest, most obtrusive example.
My hunch, however, is that the willingness to play along with certain kinds of nonsense games, including religion and other ritualized activities, is a social bonding mechanism in humans so deeply ingrained that it is difficult for us to step outside ourselves and recognize it for a game. One's willingness to play along with the rituals of a culture signifies that his need to be a part of the community is stronger than his need for rational justification. Consenting to accept a manufactured truth is an act of submission. It generates social cohesion and establishes shibboleths. In a way it is a constant background radiation of codependence and enablement permeating human existence.
If I go way too far out on this particular limb, I actually suspect that the ability to prioritize rational justification over social submission is a more recent development than we realize, and that this development is still competing with the old instincts for social cohesion. Perhaps this is the reason that atheists and skeptics are typically considered more objectionable than those with differing religious or supernatural beliefs. Playing the game under slightly different rules seems less dangerous than refusing to play at all.
Think of the undertones of the intuitive stereotype many people have of skeptics: many people automatically imagine a sort of bristly, unfriendly loner who isn't really happy and is always trying to make other people unhappy too. There is really no factual basis for this caricature, and yet it is almost universal. On this account, when we become adults we do not stop playing games of make-believe. Instead we just start taking our games of make-believe very seriously, and our intuitive sense is that someone who rejects our games is rejecting us. Such a person feels untrustworthy in a way we would find hard to justify.
Religions are hardly the only source of this sort of game. I suspect they are everywhere, often too subtle to notice, but religions are by far the largest, oldest, most obtrusive example.
Sodner
Mar 13, 09:07 AM
It todays world as fossil fuels become more scarce and more expensive, nu.clear power is a great alternative. This was a huge and rare natural disaster that caused the problems. Under anything close to normal circumstances they are 100% safe
redkamel
Aug 29, 06:57 PM
3 The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. ...
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
drapacioli
Sep 2, 10:45 AM
Is it just certain phones that get dropped calls? I have AT&T and when I demoed the iPhone in store the only phone call I tried to make with it was a dropped call. But my current phone, the Samsung Captivate, I have never even had a low signal, let alone a dropped call.
Xapplimatic
Aug 29, 03:46 PM
Why not target the bigger fish first? Too hard a target? Microsoft in its CD replication factories, Dell in its TV/monitor and board manufacturing facilities surely put out hundreds of tons of more toxic wastes than all of Apples productions combined. Why not start there?
Object-X
Sep 12, 05:27 PM
I really don't understand all the comments about why doesn't it have a DVD player, or it doesn't have Tivo capabilities, ect. I really think you all are missing the point: it is designed to eventually replace all those technologies. OK, it doesnt' do it yet, but Jobs said something very important at the end of the keynote, and that was "you can see the direction we are heading".
The whole concept here is to make DVD players, recorders, rentals, and even channel viewing irrelevant. You will purchase, subscribe, rent?, and control all media content on your computer and simply stream it to an HDTV.
Does it support HDTV resolutions? Not yet, but I'm sure it will. Remember, iTV is a direction, not the end of the road.
So, the complaints are more or less becaues we are impatient and want it all now. This is just a start. If done right, this concept of computer, iTunes Store, and iTV could replace cable and satellite TV service. Why screw around trying to record shows, edit commercials, ect. when you can just get and control your content easily and simply with your computer?
I like this whole idea. I can see cable news channels offering their content via TVcasts that you can subscribe too, and other network channels offering their media libraries for download or even rental; and the iTunes Store will basically act as the purchasing hub. Want Monday nights football game? Just subscribe to it on iTunes and it will download automatically and you can watch it whenever. Who needs Tivo? Don't need 200 channels of crap? Just download the stuff you want to watch and have your own media library. Who needs cable and commercials?
The whole concept here is to make DVD players, recorders, rentals, and even channel viewing irrelevant. You will purchase, subscribe, rent?, and control all media content on your computer and simply stream it to an HDTV.
Does it support HDTV resolutions? Not yet, but I'm sure it will. Remember, iTV is a direction, not the end of the road.
So, the complaints are more or less becaues we are impatient and want it all now. This is just a start. If done right, this concept of computer, iTunes Store, and iTV could replace cable and satellite TV service. Why screw around trying to record shows, edit commercials, ect. when you can just get and control your content easily and simply with your computer?
I like this whole idea. I can see cable news channels offering their content via TVcasts that you can subscribe too, and other network channels offering their media libraries for download or even rental; and the iTunes Store will basically act as the purchasing hub. Want Monday nights football game? Just subscribe to it on iTunes and it will download automatically and you can watch it whenever. Who needs Tivo? Don't need 200 channels of crap? Just download the stuff you want to watch and have your own media library. Who needs cable and commercials?
Digitalclips
Apr 28, 08:32 AM
Now re tabulate by profitability.
bobbleheadbob
Apr 9, 10:46 AM
And would you pay $40 for it? I'm guessing you would.
Nintendo has really valuable IP that it would be wonderful to see on the iOS platform.
Nope. But I'd pay $.99 - $4.99.
Nintendo has really valuable IP that it would be wonderful to see on the iOS platform.
Nope. But I'd pay $.99 - $4.99.
Heilage
Mar 25, 03:02 PM
Dear The Vatican (att. Pope Benedict XVI aka. Darth Sidious Doppelganger)
**** you. If you keep on spreading hate throughout the world, I will ride your asses for it every single day.
Sincerely,
Heilage
(And that's all I have to say about that)
**** you. If you keep on spreading hate throughout the world, I will ride your asses for it every single day.
Sincerely,
Heilage
(And that's all I have to say about that)
SiliconAddict
Sep 21, 08:48 AM
The more I hear about iTV the lest interested I am in it. I don't need something that integ. with my desktop computer and clogs up my home network. I want a stand alone solution. So it looks like I'm back to building a HTPC sometime next spring. Pitty too. It looks like a slick device. Just not what I'm looking to put under my TV. :(
Blackcat
Mar 19, 04:39 PM
Firstly, let me say I'm against DRM if it restricts me using my own music I've paid for, but equally I see why artists don't want me uploading my iTunes Library to Gnutella.
Now, this "I do it to help Linux" excuse, it's rubbish. I've no objection to people choosing Linux (I use it on several servers) but to then moan it can't do xyz is crazy. If you need to watch DVDs, access iTunes, play The Sims, use Word etc then you should be running an OS that can do those things not by hacking support by illegal means. I understand the frustration of not being supported, but again it was by choice, lobby Apple to do Linux iTunes.
I applaud this software for giving me my usage rights back, but lets not make DVD Jon a hero of Linux, he just likes beating the system.
Now, this "I do it to help Linux" excuse, it's rubbish. I've no objection to people choosing Linux (I use it on several servers) but to then moan it can't do xyz is crazy. If you need to watch DVDs, access iTunes, play The Sims, use Word etc then you should be running an OS that can do those things not by hacking support by illegal means. I understand the frustration of not being supported, but again it was by choice, lobby Apple to do Linux iTunes.
I applaud this software for giving me my usage rights back, but lets not make DVD Jon a hero of Linux, he just likes beating the system.
asdf542
Apr 13, 05:03 AM
Full keynote has been uploaded to YouTube -
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VLwsfBa71U
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfgnyRSRyzg
3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3OI3RGdhrM
4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M16Hb4_3oOY
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VLwsfBa71U
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfgnyRSRyzg
3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3OI3RGdhrM
4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M16Hb4_3oOY
KnightWRX
May 2, 04:35 PM
Is anybody actually bothering to do this in the wild against any OS?
The types of attacks you are referring to are not occurring in the wild on a massive scale. When was the last time you heard about one in the media?
Again, look, if you're not interested in the mechanics, that's fine. Stop replying to me.
My post is inquiring about the mechanics. For the past hour, I've been trying to find how this thing ticks by searching around for in-depth articles (none to find, everyone just points to Intego's brief overview that is seriously lacking in details) or for the archive itself.
If you don't want to take this discussion to the technical level I am trying to take it, just don't participate.
At the moment, there is no way to prevent the kinds of attacks you are referring to on any OS if a vulnerability exists that allows the attacker to exploit a running application.
I don't know of any other Web browser (this is not a OS problem, it's a Safari problem). that automatically assumes executables are safe and thus should be auto-executed.
Webkit2 will reduce access to user space when Safari (or any app using webkit2) is exploited by restricting the privileges of apps on a per app basis.
What does Webkit2 have anything to do with running an installer on the OS after downloading it ? That happens outside the rendering engine's sandbox. You're not quite understanding what this sandbox does if you think this protects you against these types of attacks.
Turn off "Open safe files after downloading" if you are worried about that type of attack implemented via "safe" files.
I think you missed the part where I don't use Safari. I'm pretty far away from allowing it to "auto-run" "safe" files (I choose what I want to run).
Again munkery, I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but I'm not some noob user. You are not answering my inquiries nor helping any here at the level I want to discuss this. I get everything you are saying. I've been getting that level for quite a few years. I'm trying to discuss at another level here. Do you want to participate or not at a higher level where we discuss the actual mechanics of this rather than just starring at the tip of the iceberg ?
The types of attacks you are referring to are not occurring in the wild on a massive scale. When was the last time you heard about one in the media?
Again, look, if you're not interested in the mechanics, that's fine. Stop replying to me.
My post is inquiring about the mechanics. For the past hour, I've been trying to find how this thing ticks by searching around for in-depth articles (none to find, everyone just points to Intego's brief overview that is seriously lacking in details) or for the archive itself.
If you don't want to take this discussion to the technical level I am trying to take it, just don't participate.
At the moment, there is no way to prevent the kinds of attacks you are referring to on any OS if a vulnerability exists that allows the attacker to exploit a running application.
I don't know of any other Web browser (this is not a OS problem, it's a Safari problem). that automatically assumes executables are safe and thus should be auto-executed.
Webkit2 will reduce access to user space when Safari (or any app using webkit2) is exploited by restricting the privileges of apps on a per app basis.
What does Webkit2 have anything to do with running an installer on the OS after downloading it ? That happens outside the rendering engine's sandbox. You're not quite understanding what this sandbox does if you think this protects you against these types of attacks.
Turn off "Open safe files after downloading" if you are worried about that type of attack implemented via "safe" files.
I think you missed the part where I don't use Safari. I'm pretty far away from allowing it to "auto-run" "safe" files (I choose what I want to run).
Again munkery, I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but I'm not some noob user. You are not answering my inquiries nor helping any here at the level I want to discuss this. I get everything you are saying. I've been getting that level for quite a few years. I'm trying to discuss at another level here. Do you want to participate or not at a higher level where we discuss the actual mechanics of this rather than just starring at the tip of the iceberg ?
takao
Mar 14, 07:44 PM
according to tepco a 8000+ microsievert 8mSV+) value of radiation has been measured on the power plant grounds
yearly average dosage 2.4mSV
and while the values have since then dropped again to lower levels the situation has become more serious than before
yearly average dosage 2.4mSV
and while the values have since then dropped again to lower levels the situation has become more serious than before
Peterkro
Mar 14, 11:06 AM
EDIT: Here's a FANTASTIC read on Fukushima: http://reindeerflotilla.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/all-right-its-time-to-stop-the-fukushima-hysteria/
Yes that is a good article although pro-nuclear.I originally was flummoxed by the bit about bringing in portable generators and not being able to use them because the connecting plugs were different,this apparently is not the case it's that the switchgear is in a room that is flooded with radioactive water and they can't get rid of the water.I've quoted this guy before and whether he has an axe to grind or not he is not as confident in the plant as others seem to be:
"Japanese engineer Masashi Goto, who helped design the containment vessel for Fukushima's reactor core, says the design was not enough to withstand earthquakes or tsunamis and the plant's builders, Toshiba, knew this."
Here's another article from the NYT which may be useful:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp
I think it's to early to make any judgements about what's happening.
Yes that is a good article although pro-nuclear.I originally was flummoxed by the bit about bringing in portable generators and not being able to use them because the connecting plugs were different,this apparently is not the case it's that the switchgear is in a room that is flooded with radioactive water and they can't get rid of the water.I've quoted this guy before and whether he has an axe to grind or not he is not as confident in the plant as others seem to be:
"Japanese engineer Masashi Goto, who helped design the containment vessel for Fukushima's reactor core, says the design was not enough to withstand earthquakes or tsunamis and the plant's builders, Toshiba, knew this."
Here's another article from the NYT which may be useful:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp
I think it's to early to make any judgements about what's happening.
leekohler
Mar 28, 09:34 AM
I should go to bed now. But before I do that, maybe a question will help explain part of my point about the difference between me and a property might gain or lose. If I asked "Who are you?" when we happened to see each other, would you reply that you were gay? I doubt it. You probably would say, "I'm Lee Kohler."
Yes, I would. But being gay is not a property I will ever lose. It's as much a part of me as my green eyes.
Yes, I would. But being gay is not a property I will ever lose. It's as much a part of me as my green eyes.
4look4rd
Apr 9, 01:11 PM
I still cannot believe that there aren't decent turn base strategy games on the iphone. Games like tactics ogre, final fantasy tactics, front mission, and the like would be excellent in a mobile device. I remember square announced FFT for the iphone a while back but it still was not released.
I would love if they ported PS1 and N64 classics to the iphone/ipad. Can you imagine playing FF7-9, Smash Brothers, Parasite Eve, platformers like Megaman, and even Resident Evil 1-3 (the RE4 port was dreadful, but I can see it being done properly).
I would love if they ported PS1 and N64 classics to the iphone/ipad. Can you imagine playing FF7-9, Smash Brothers, Parasite Eve, platformers like Megaman, and even Resident Evil 1-3 (the RE4 port was dreadful, but I can see it being done properly).
arkitect
Apr 15, 10:03 AM
you obviously must not know very many gay people, personally. This lifestyle does not come without baggage and high-priced trade offs. Anyone who says there's no inconveniences and struggles with being gay/lesbian is full ****.
Umm… sweetheart… I am a 47yo gay man (married).
I think most of your problems lie within. Self-hate is not the way forward.
Umm… sweetheart… I am a 47yo gay man (married).
I think most of your problems lie within. Self-hate is not the way forward.
skunk
Apr 27, 01:15 PM
The main argument against the Judaeo-Christian God is: there is evil in the world, God is meant to be all-powerful and all-loving, and all-knowing, yet evil continues unabated.The real point is that the "Judaeo-Christian God" is not Judaeo-Christian at all, but the chief god of the Ugaritic pantheon, and no more "real" than Zeus, Jupiter, Horus or Astarte.
AlligatorBloodz
Apr 9, 07:32 PM
It's quite obvious what Apple are doing.
They're not going to make a console as such because it's a cumbersome solution. What they'll do is continue to improve and expand their current iOS platform and the games involved.
The "console" solution they're working on is quite simple. Airplay. If the rumours are true about Apple trying to licence the tech and if we go by the relatively cheap Apple TV iteration the future is staring you in the face.
Your iPhone, iPod or iPad will become the console or the controller in the tradition console sense. Games will be sent wirelessly without lag to the TV where others can join in with their own iOS devices. The devices can change depending on the game and the flexibility of the touch screen. Once you've finished you take your iOS device with you and carry on playing on the go.
Apple will never make a traditional games console. It isn't in their DNA to make something so vulgar. They'll simply integrate experiences into a whole. Airplay is the way they'll do it in regards to the TV.
They're not going to make a console as such because it's a cumbersome solution. What they'll do is continue to improve and expand their current iOS platform and the games involved.
The "console" solution they're working on is quite simple. Airplay. If the rumours are true about Apple trying to licence the tech and if we go by the relatively cheap Apple TV iteration the future is staring you in the face.
Your iPhone, iPod or iPad will become the console or the controller in the tradition console sense. Games will be sent wirelessly without lag to the TV where others can join in with their own iOS devices. The devices can change depending on the game and the flexibility of the touch screen. Once you've finished you take your iOS device with you and carry on playing on the go.
Apple will never make a traditional games console. It isn't in their DNA to make something so vulgar. They'll simply integrate experiences into a whole. Airplay is the way they'll do it in regards to the TV.