iPhone 4 Poll - Black or White


Are you getting the Black or White iPhone 4?  

138 members have voted

  1. 1. Are you getting the Black or White iPhone 4?

    • Black
      99
    • White
      39
  2. 2. What about the bumper?

    • Leave as is
      65
    • Black
      23
    • White
      10
    • Pink
      2
    • Blue
      4
    • Green
      1
    • Orange
      1


Recommended Posts

It's kind of funny how for so many years, Apple's consumer products only came in white, like the iPod, then they started offering them in black and now their black products are more popular than their white products.

Engadget has a post up saying that the White iPhone 4 will not be available at launch :(

If the rumor turns out to be true, guess I will be definitely going with Black and not White.

Turns out this is true.

At least in the pictures, white looks very toyish and plasticy whereas black looks sophisticated and professional. Also, being an all glass back, it will really shine in black and would be useful to look at reflections when taking self pictures with someone. Just a thought.

Pro as in Professional. You know, kinda like how a Thinkpad looks more professional than an Alienware gamers laptop. Or a laptop bag/brief case looks more professional than a backpack. Yes it is completely subjective and a matter of opinion. I think tat the black iPhone 4 has a more professional look to it than the white one does. Not sure why that was so funny for you. But I'm glad I made you laugh.

Well that is kind of my point. Professional what? Are you saying a phone can be professional? A laptop can be professional? Professional means relating to a profession. What profession does a phone or laptop belong to.

I completely understand your point and agree with your idea. I just thought "Pro"/"Professional" sounds funny.

Well that is kind of my point. Professional what? Are you saying a phone can be professional? A laptop can be professional? Professional means relating to a profession. What profession does a phone or laptop belong to.

I completely understand your point and agree with your idea. I just thought "Pro"/"Professional" sounds funny.

Following "sense 3" of the adjective form of "Professional" found here

Meaning:

Characteristic of or befitting a profession or one engaged in a profession

Context examples:

professional conduct / professional ethics / a thoroughly professional performance

Antonym:

unprofessional (not characteristic of or befitting a profession or one engaged in a profession)

Another similar usage of the word would be describing the way a person dresses as being "professional" or "unprofessional". I'm not making up a new usage for the word, here :wacko: .

Can a phone benefit a profession? Absolutely. Can a phone be more professional than another phone and therefore benefit a person within any profession to look more professional? Absolutely.

I have a black 16 GB reserved, and I'm going to pick up a black bumper while I'm there too.

I have two black 16 reserved and probably buy a black bumper until OtterBox designs a case for the iPhone 4. The last OtterBox case I had with my 3G was superb.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • This got me thinking, would you rather a self driving car prioritise protecting its passengers or everyone else? I'd choose the one that keeps me and my kids safest. At some point, these cars have to make those choices already, don't they? Wonder if we have a way to find out what way they lean.
    • The proportion (or number of iterations) has nothing to with this aspect of Copyright I am describing. In short, it doesn't matter how many times the manager tells you to change something or how. Your work product is always YOURS until and unless you then assign that to the person representing the client/company, usually for financial compensation -- either in salary or as a subcontract work for hire payment. if iterations determined copyright, then businesses would have learned to just keep making changes until they could claim they owned the copyright, without having to compensate the artist for their work. And that would be BAD. The only place where the amount of changes does have a role is in how much does a human modify a previous public domain work (from any source) before it is considered fair use or their own work, etc. For example, if a human makes substantial changes to a public domain (re: AI, by definition) work, then they can then claim that derivative work as their own...but NEVER the original version, of course. That's why anyone can make a movie about Dracula, for example, as long as it is based on the public domain novel, but not if they take new ideas from copyrighted movies made afterwards. As one of the people who personally advised the US Copyright Office on their recent ruling on these very issues, be assured that I specifically used the terminology precisely -- though I made it simple enough for laymen to understand it. If I made this confusing by doing so, I apologize. But, to be clear regarding your assumption that I would agree to your second statement that I quoted above -- the answer is NO. If AI does the work, no matter how much "direction" you give it, it cannot be copyrighted. All AI generated content is in the Public Domain and therefore the copyright cannot be assigned to ANYONE, even you -- until and unless substantial modifications are made to it BY A HUMAN BEING (yourself or a contracted artist/writer/etc.) and then that copyright on the derivative work is legally (in writing) transferred to you. This is a critical distinction. And it is important that people, especially AI sloppers, understand this. For example, YouTube is not paying AI slop generators for the copyright, etc. of their AI slop. What YouTube is doing is sharing AD REVENUE for permission to publish your AI slop. Copyright/ownership/rights never come into it. Importantly, that means that anyone can copy any AI slopware on YouTube, etc. and rehost it anywhere they want, even back on YouTube, and there is nothing legal that YouTube can do about it with regards to copyright protections, ownership, DMCA, etc. Anyone is legally free to use any AI slopware in any way they want. When this ruling was pending, I warned Disney legal of all of this before they did their OpenAI deal -- that it would literally dilute their entire IP portfolio forever. They ignored that warning for the PR and stock bump. But that is why, when the ruling came down last year, Disney quickly extricated themselves from that OpenAI deal, even eating the initial upfront fees -- followed closely by OpenAI ending their entire AI video generating business model. They adjusted their PR release dates to make this less obvious to shareholders, of course. Phew. I hope that this clears up the key distinctions for you and anyone reading. If you have any additional questions or even hypotheticals about AI and Copyright, please feel free to ask.
    • Each of the devices displayed on this page now has a little volume meter next to it to show if there is audio actively playing. About time.
    • Owing to the nature of Windows feature enablement updates, it was distributed over Windows Update services as a complete system upgrade rather than as an ordinary cumulative update
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      565
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      188
    3. 3
      Michael Scrip
      79
    4. 4
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      74
    5. 5
      neufuse
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!