Photon Torpedo Vs Halcyon Mini Scout Review

[rjack321]

Dude, we're busting your chops because you have misrepresented the adequacy of backups for the job they are called to do as backups in DIR cave/overhead diving.

If someone wants to skip bringing a primary (or doesn't even own one) and use a backup light for open water diving Hawaii that is fine. But that doesn't somehow imply that weaker lights are inadequate for caves. In fact weakers lights (like 10w HIDs) are surprisingly fine in caves but less than suitable in someplace like HI, Guam, or Cayman's where there's more ambient light.

 

[lamont]

Oh, so if a diver in back has a light failure he SIGNALS the divers in front with his backup light. Got it. If I were doing that I personally would want a bright one.

the primary light going out is a pretty good signal.

everyone basically knows what their job is at that point. communication is fairly redundant and minimal.

 

[lamont]

You violated the EULA when you did this. Please take a look at the Apple vs Prystar court case.

if i buy it, i should have the right to use it as i see fit.

last time i bought a drill at lowe's i didn't have to sign a EULA about how i would use it.

in this case the law is wrong.

 

[Ragnar]

Dude, we're busting your chops because you have misrepresented the adequacy of backups for the job they are called to do as backups in DIR cave/overhead diving.

If someone wants to skip bringing a primary (or doesn't even own one) and use a backup light for open water diving Hawaii that is fine. But that doesn't somehow imply that weaker lights are inadequate for caves. In fact weakers lights (like 10w HIDs) are surprisingly fine in caves but less than suitable in someplace like HI, Guam, or Cayman's where there's more ambient light.

Trust me, I won't be doing it again......with any piece of gear.

 

[ucfdiver]

if i buy it, i should have the right to use it as i see fit.

last time i bought a drill at lowe's i didn't have to sign a EULA about how i would use it.

in this case the law is wrong.

When I took an ethical hacking course I had to sign stating that I wouldn't use the knowledge for any malicious purpose, only penetration testing. I think there's a difference between physical property and intellectual property. I *do* understand Apple's stance, but I wish it were different.

 

[lamont]

When I took an ethical hacking course I had to sign stating that I wouldn't use the knowledge for any malicious purpose, only penetration testing.

well, i've never signed anything like that. =)

I think there's a difference between physical property and intellectual property. I *do* understand Apple's stance, but I wish it were different.

i can understanding wanting to limit the running instances via a license. the ability to easily clone software, where its much more difficult for me to clone a physical tool does introduce some additional legal complexity. however, if i want to take my licensed copy of snow leopard and run it on a a dell instead of a mac, i don't see how that's apple's business.

similarly, i don't think that cracking encryption scheme and violating the DMCA and posting keys so that users can root their own boxes is in any way unethical and shouldn't be illegal -- any more than its illegal to rice-out your honda (although that might be an aesthetic crime...).

 

[PfcAJ]

 

[ucfdiver]

i can understanding wanting to limit the running instances via a license. the ability to easily clone software, where its much more difficult for me to clone a physical tool does introduce some additional legal complexity. however, if i want to take my licensed copy of snow leopard and run it on a a dell instead of a mac, i don't see how that's apple's business.

similarly, i don't think that cracking encryption scheme and violating the DMCA and posting keys so that users can root their own boxes is in any way unethical and shouldn't be illegal -- any more than its illegal to rice-out your honda (although that might be an aesthetic crime...).

Well, if apple doesn't have complete control over the software and hardware it runs on, you begin to have hardware issues that people blame software for. For instance, how many times have you seen a PC lock up due to a $20 650w power supply off tiger direct, or $5/GB ram sticks that aren't matched? If you've ever used a osx86 based machine, you know it's far from the experience you get when you open your shiny new Mac, unless you download the exact vanilla'd dvd you need as well as have a PC with all supported hardware. Many of these machines have issues waking up from sleep, dual monitor issues, sound issues, firewire freezing, etc, and if someone came to my house and used a hackintosh I built not realizing that, chances are they wouldn't have a great first impression of a mac.

All that being said, it would be very difficult for Apple to prove damages done by installing a paid version of snow leopard on PC/x86 architecture. I'd be shocked if they went after a end user, the court case I stated earlier was someone selling hardware with their software on it, so costing them in hardware sales.

 

[lamont]

Well, if apple doesn't have complete control over the software and hardware it runs on, you begin to have hardware issues that people blame software for. For instance, how many times have you seen a PC lock up due to a $20 650w power supply off tiger direct, or $5/GB ram sticks that aren't matched? If you've ever used a osx86 based machine, you know it's far from the experience you get when you open your shiny new Mac, unless you download the exact vanilla'd dvd you need as well as have a PC with all supported hardware. Many of these machines have issues waking up from sleep, dual monitor issues, sound issues, firewire freezing, etc, and if someone came to my house and used a hackintosh I built not realizing that, chances are they wouldn't have a great first impression of a mac.

All that being said, it would be very difficult for Apple to prove damages done by installing a paid version of snow leopard on PC/x86 architecture. I'd be shocked if they went after a end user, the court case I stated earlier was someone selling hardware with their software on it, so costing them in hardware sales.

Yes, but where is that any different from the riceboy with different manifold, headers, exhaust, timing, lifters, cams, suspension and a pile of stickers on the back to make it go faster? I doubt Honda wants to deal with the warranty issues from that kind of modification either, and you'll probably find language to void the warranty if you do that kind of thing. However, Honda can't get riceboys arrested for screwing with their cars, while apple can get hackers arrested for screwing with their O/S.

There's also absolutely no law against buying a Honda, souping it up and re-selling it (just Honda won't stand behind it anymore).

[ and yes, this is far more interesting of a discussion than the backup lights -- i completely lost interest after i found out it wasn't one of the new halcyon LED heads ]

 

[Blackwood]

dual monitor issues

Funny, I've never had problems with dual monitors on windows, but it's an absolute abortion on my macbook (at least as far as I've used it, which is only limited to the plugging in of an Apple->HDMI adapter in order to watch hulu on my TV).

I agree in any case. Apple's software is slick because they write it for an extremely small set of hardware configurations. If they set it up to work like MS does with Windows on an almost limitless number of configurations with backwards compatibility up the wazoo, it would suffer the exact same issues.

Also, do it right or don't do it at all.