blastvurt
Apr 10, 01:10 PM
This is Apple of and this is the iPad and iOS.
Entirely, entirely different ballgame from any other handheld on the market.
Your right, it is a entirely different ballgame, other handhelds are dedicated for gaming, the ipad and iphone is not.
As far as the limits of touch-based gaming goes . . . come back in 2-3 years and *then* keep telling me about limits.
There are limits to touch based gaming and always will be
The same way the Xbox 360 controller is more limited than the PS3 controller with 6 axis
The same way the Wii controller is limited at with many types of games compared to the Xbox 360 and PS3 conventional button based controllers
Interesting how Apple is turning non-gamers in to gamers, and we're not hearing about the alleged horrid limits of touch-based gaming.
Sort of like what Nintendo did with the Wii. With its excellent libary of good games, oh wait it has a few good games and a large amount of shovelware. Compare that to something like the PS3 or XBOX 360, a lot of good games and some shovelware
Yes, and touchscreens on smartphones will *never* replace physical keyboards. We all know how that turned out, right?
Yes we have, they haven't replaced physical keyboards. They may have become more popular than keyboard based devices, but keyboard based phones are still released.
Fear of change? It's thick in these forums.
There is good change, bad change and what many people want on here change for the sake of change
In January 2010 people looked at the iPad and didn't quite understand what was going on. Didn't know where to put it, what category to fit it into. To some it was amusing at best. To others it was ridiculous and redundant. To a few it was total genius.
Considering tablets had been around for many years before the ipad but never really made it into the consumer realm. It is understandable why many would assume it a failure.
Many people on here are more tech minded, something like the ipad would not look like a successful product due to its limited capabilities, compared to what they want from a device
Today it's a household name and a device millions upon millions of people have and use every day - many of them just average, non tech-savvy folks. And it's the device that drives the post-PC era. And demand by both consumers and developers and content providers is exploding, and will continue unabated for the foreseeable future.
Ipad is for general consumers, the same way the netbook was. Good for consumption of the web, ebooks etc (better than the netbook for ebooks and reading due to form factor). Limited uses for real work though.
PSP Slim? DS? LOL is all I have to say. Like the Palm Centro and Cli� before the iPhone. These aren't even a factor anymore.
Your right they are not factors anymore. It is now 3DS, PSP NGP, HP veer and Pre 3.
Today iphone tomorrow something else. There is nothing stopping Apple from failing. It is sheer blind stupidity to think they can't fail and that they will always be successful.
Entirely, entirely different ballgame from any other handheld on the market.
Your right, it is a entirely different ballgame, other handhelds are dedicated for gaming, the ipad and iphone is not.
As far as the limits of touch-based gaming goes . . . come back in 2-3 years and *then* keep telling me about limits.
There are limits to touch based gaming and always will be
The same way the Xbox 360 controller is more limited than the PS3 controller with 6 axis
The same way the Wii controller is limited at with many types of games compared to the Xbox 360 and PS3 conventional button based controllers
Interesting how Apple is turning non-gamers in to gamers, and we're not hearing about the alleged horrid limits of touch-based gaming.
Sort of like what Nintendo did with the Wii. With its excellent libary of good games, oh wait it has a few good games and a large amount of shovelware. Compare that to something like the PS3 or XBOX 360, a lot of good games and some shovelware
Yes, and touchscreens on smartphones will *never* replace physical keyboards. We all know how that turned out, right?
Yes we have, they haven't replaced physical keyboards. They may have become more popular than keyboard based devices, but keyboard based phones are still released.
Fear of change? It's thick in these forums.
There is good change, bad change and what many people want on here change for the sake of change
In January 2010 people looked at the iPad and didn't quite understand what was going on. Didn't know where to put it, what category to fit it into. To some it was amusing at best. To others it was ridiculous and redundant. To a few it was total genius.
Considering tablets had been around for many years before the ipad but never really made it into the consumer realm. It is understandable why many would assume it a failure.
Many people on here are more tech minded, something like the ipad would not look like a successful product due to its limited capabilities, compared to what they want from a device
Today it's a household name and a device millions upon millions of people have and use every day - many of them just average, non tech-savvy folks. And it's the device that drives the post-PC era. And demand by both consumers and developers and content providers is exploding, and will continue unabated for the foreseeable future.
Ipad is for general consumers, the same way the netbook was. Good for consumption of the web, ebooks etc (better than the netbook for ebooks and reading due to form factor). Limited uses for real work though.
PSP Slim? DS? LOL is all I have to say. Like the Palm Centro and Cli� before the iPhone. These aren't even a factor anymore.
Your right they are not factors anymore. It is now 3DS, PSP NGP, HP veer and Pre 3.
Today iphone tomorrow something else. There is nothing stopping Apple from failing. It is sheer blind stupidity to think they can't fail and that they will always be successful.
Howdr
Mar 18, 08:35 AM
OMG you still done get it:
Let's try explaining it this way...
When you subscribe to cable, you pick a package that provides you with the channels that you want. There are various packages, but ultimately it's all just video streaming over a cable (bits in this day and age, not analog)...
Based on yours and others arguements, why can't we all just pay for basic cable and get all 500+ channels plus the premium channels for free? Very simply, you're paying for a package with specific features....
No no, as long as you abide by the amount of data in the plan it should not matter how you use it.
You can't steal what you paid for, you buy 100 cable channels that is what you get and use
You buy 2gb and use 1gb you have used 1gb no matter if its on the phone or laptop. 1gb= 1gb
With your cellular service, you chose a package that meets your needs. You have 3 options for data plans at this point, well, 4 technically...
1) Your grandfathered unlimited plan
2) 250mb
3) Data Pro 2GB
4) Data Pro 2GB + Tethering 2GB for a total of 4GB....
Ok? the tethering give you 2gb for the money I see that and I have read the tethering and Data pro are added to total 4gb for the charge. So you and At&t prove my point thank you! Data=Data, they add it together and it is the same.
Tethering is not the same as using the data on your device, essentially tethering is using your phone as a modem. You data plan (which I'm assuming is either unlimited or 250mb) does not include the feature of using your phone as a modem, that's what the extra charge is for....
If you want to tether, you need to pay for the appropriate package. Just like if you want HBO, Showtime, or HDTV you need to pay for the appropriate cable package...
LOL no its the same use of Data as on the phone.
Tethering does not do something different to AT&t, its just using Data
you may not understand how Data is used from the source but I assure you there is no difference to AT&t when you tether and when you surf YOUTUBE on the phone.
To At&t Data=Data and its been their words not mine every time its printed by them.
So far I have not seen an argument that proves otherwise.:rolleyes:
Let's try explaining it this way...
When you subscribe to cable, you pick a package that provides you with the channels that you want. There are various packages, but ultimately it's all just video streaming over a cable (bits in this day and age, not analog)...
Based on yours and others arguements, why can't we all just pay for basic cable and get all 500+ channels plus the premium channels for free? Very simply, you're paying for a package with specific features....
No no, as long as you abide by the amount of data in the plan it should not matter how you use it.
You can't steal what you paid for, you buy 100 cable channels that is what you get and use
You buy 2gb and use 1gb you have used 1gb no matter if its on the phone or laptop. 1gb= 1gb
With your cellular service, you chose a package that meets your needs. You have 3 options for data plans at this point, well, 4 technically...
1) Your grandfathered unlimited plan
2) 250mb
3) Data Pro 2GB
4) Data Pro 2GB + Tethering 2GB for a total of 4GB....
Ok? the tethering give you 2gb for the money I see that and I have read the tethering and Data pro are added to total 4gb for the charge. So you and At&t prove my point thank you! Data=Data, they add it together and it is the same.
Tethering is not the same as using the data on your device, essentially tethering is using your phone as a modem. You data plan (which I'm assuming is either unlimited or 250mb) does not include the feature of using your phone as a modem, that's what the extra charge is for....
If you want to tether, you need to pay for the appropriate package. Just like if you want HBO, Showtime, or HDTV you need to pay for the appropriate cable package...
LOL no its the same use of Data as on the phone.
Tethering does not do something different to AT&t, its just using Data
you may not understand how Data is used from the source but I assure you there is no difference to AT&t when you tether and when you surf YOUTUBE on the phone.
To At&t Data=Data and its been their words not mine every time its printed by them.
So far I have not seen an argument that proves otherwise.:rolleyes:
more...
peharri
Sep 20, 01:51 PM
I think iTV is a waste of time and money for apple. In essence, the mac mini can do ALL OF THAT, plus more, minus the ability to go out via HDMI. If apple just upgraded FRONT ROW to the quality of the iTV user interface, you have an iTV right there on the mac mini! Just add some more ports, including HDMI, cable in for DVR recording, a massive hard drive, and you have a MAC MEDIA CENTER PC! What about connecting to other machines to share content? YOU CAN ALREADY DO THAT!!! In iTunes you say "share my media on my network" and any computer with iTunes can read that information! Come on apple...this iTV thing is a WASTE. It's a dumb down mac mini...apple will make way more money selling mac mini's with TIGER/LEOPARD on it, so not only would you get a DVR, STREAMING MOVIES, DOWNLOADABLE MOVIES TO PLAY ON YOUR TV, but you get WEB TV!!! Or edit a MOVIE ON YOUR BIG ASS TV! Sorry for the rant...I just don't know why apple doesn't merge both technologies together in one system to compete with media center pc, and convert MORE mac sales.
The iTV is going to be $300. You're talking about ordinary users paying well over $600 for a set top box. Requiring that they get a Mac mini raises the barrier to entry but doesn't provide any significant advantage to the person who just wants iTunes on their TV.
The iTV is going to be $300. You're talking about ordinary users paying well over $600 for a set top box. Requiring that they get a Mac mini raises the barrier to entry but doesn't provide any significant advantage to the person who just wants iTunes on their TV.
Multimedia
Jul 13, 06:10 AM
I've been wondering about this too. Surely they have the source code (or most of it) written in a high level language, right? If I'm not totally mistaken, there shouldn't be that much more work involved than a re-compilation for x86. Even if some filters or other stuff are hand coded in assembler, they already have that code in x86-assembler in the Windows version.Adobe made a strategic decision to go Universal with the CS3 Suite next year and meanwhile not to divert work to Universalize the CS2 Suite. If you need Adobe stuff all the time, just get a G5 Quad and you will be happy as a clam. It's still going to be the second fastest Mac after Mac Pros are out. :)
more...
Backtothemac
Oct 7, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
MrMacman:
Perhaps you missed it the first few times around, but Athlons are available at speeds of 2400+ (2.0ghz) and there are even a few 2600+ (2.13ghz) models out there. Why does it matter if they overclocked an old Athlon to 1.6ghz? Tell you what, to make it fair why don't we add in my overclocked dual 800?
Jesus you still don't get it. If you compare Apples to Apples, the 1.6GHZ Dual Athlon is still slower in apps that are multi processor aware. Now, how about the PIV? How does that stack up? The x86 is garbage. Any real IT director would know that.
The point that I was making was that the testing was flawed.
And pc's suck.
MrMacman:
Perhaps you missed it the first few times around, but Athlons are available at speeds of 2400+ (2.0ghz) and there are even a few 2600+ (2.13ghz) models out there. Why does it matter if they overclocked an old Athlon to 1.6ghz? Tell you what, to make it fair why don't we add in my overclocked dual 800?
Jesus you still don't get it. If you compare Apples to Apples, the 1.6GHZ Dual Athlon is still slower in apps that are multi processor aware. Now, how about the PIV? How does that stack up? The x86 is garbage. Any real IT director would know that.
The point that I was making was that the testing was flawed.
And pc's suck.
skunk
Mar 26, 01:39 PM
I agree with you, brother. God bless you.You agree with a mangled, meaningless phrase of dog Latin? Mirabile dictu.
more...
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 03:40 PM
It's like a "revalation" without the "angals" sanging.
Ahhhhhh
Ahhhhhh
Peterkro
Mar 13, 03:01 PM
If you choose not to have nuclear power, you're choosing to have oil - and all the problems that brings with it.
That is not true at all,it's not a binary choice.As I've said before the most effective answer in the short term is to stop wasting energy unnecessarily.Given the lead time and cost overruns on Nuclear plants it's not economically viable:
"The period before 2030 forecasts nuclear power to be using the existing technology of fissile reactors, with more advanced technologies coming online after 2030 (See Figure IVA.2.).
The 2030 IEA Reference forecast follows a �business as usual� scenario. In this forecast, nuclear power trails alternative methods of power generation by approximately 3 to 1, and thus declines in percent of total electricity produced from 16% to 10%. In the IEA Alternative Policy forecast, nuclear power grows at a more rapid rate, but it is outpaced by alternative power generation technologies, declining from 16% to 14% of total electricity generated. The Alternative Policy case assumes that there is an effort to curtail global warming that includes measures to boost the role of nuclear power."
http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/25-TTG-Nuclear-Power.pdf
That is not true at all,it's not a binary choice.As I've said before the most effective answer in the short term is to stop wasting energy unnecessarily.Given the lead time and cost overruns on Nuclear plants it's not economically viable:
"The period before 2030 forecasts nuclear power to be using the existing technology of fissile reactors, with more advanced technologies coming online after 2030 (See Figure IVA.2.).
The 2030 IEA Reference forecast follows a �business as usual� scenario. In this forecast, nuclear power trails alternative methods of power generation by approximately 3 to 1, and thus declines in percent of total electricity produced from 16% to 10%. In the IEA Alternative Policy forecast, nuclear power grows at a more rapid rate, but it is outpaced by alternative power generation technologies, declining from 16% to 14% of total electricity generated. The Alternative Policy case assumes that there is an effort to curtail global warming that includes measures to boost the role of nuclear power."
http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/25-TTG-Nuclear-Power.pdf
more...
KingYaba
Mar 25, 12:12 AM
The problem is demonizing people who are living living their lives in ways that cause no harm to the person condemning them, nor to any other identifiable person.
Well said and I agree.
Well said and I agree.
more...
Liquorpuki
Mar 14, 12:16 PM
The US is actually in a very good position to switch towards much more renewable energy while at the same time, upgrading our aging infrastructure. That said, what we lack is the political will and political capital to actually push such initiatives.
Look up State RPS and DOE programs. Legislation has been in place for awhile. Here in CA, we had a 33% renewables mandated by 2020 law passed in 2006. The problem isn't political. It's financial and technological. Financial because most of these renewables are way more expensive and require rate hikes. Technological because energy storage sucks and most of these renewables can't be used for base load.
Nuclear is not a necessity in the US like it MAY (I say may because I am skeptical but will take your word for it) be in Japan, and I think the current crisis going on there should make us seriously stop and think for a minute. The combination of wind, solar, tidal and geo-thermal could be quite effective here. Especially when you start consider the option of offshore wind farms which they have already approved in some parts of the NE.
Wind and solar can't cover base load. Tidal is too small in capacity. Geothermal is speculated to have the potential to cover only 10% of US capacity by 2050 and that's assuming demand won't skyrocket due to electric vehicles (which it will). That's also too small in capacity. For the US, there is no other option for base load generation other than coal, nuclear, or combined cycle natural gas. So all the replace nuclear/coal with green talk doesn't work.
I'm kinda dumbfounded that electrical use in the US would be climbing when:
* Lighting, computers, insulation, and hvac systems have all been dramatically improved in the last 20 years. Dramatically.
* Our population growth rate.. oh wait. all those ****** people on the internet that act like you've gotta be ****** around and having kids all the time or you're a loser....
nevermind!
20 years ago, you didn't have 3 TV's in every home. Wait til Electric Vehicles become mainstream.
Look up State RPS and DOE programs. Legislation has been in place for awhile. Here in CA, we had a 33% renewables mandated by 2020 law passed in 2006. The problem isn't political. It's financial and technological. Financial because most of these renewables are way more expensive and require rate hikes. Technological because energy storage sucks and most of these renewables can't be used for base load.
Nuclear is not a necessity in the US like it MAY (I say may because I am skeptical but will take your word for it) be in Japan, and I think the current crisis going on there should make us seriously stop and think for a minute. The combination of wind, solar, tidal and geo-thermal could be quite effective here. Especially when you start consider the option of offshore wind farms which they have already approved in some parts of the NE.
Wind and solar can't cover base load. Tidal is too small in capacity. Geothermal is speculated to have the potential to cover only 10% of US capacity by 2050 and that's assuming demand won't skyrocket due to electric vehicles (which it will). That's also too small in capacity. For the US, there is no other option for base load generation other than coal, nuclear, or combined cycle natural gas. So all the replace nuclear/coal with green talk doesn't work.
I'm kinda dumbfounded that electrical use in the US would be climbing when:
* Lighting, computers, insulation, and hvac systems have all been dramatically improved in the last 20 years. Dramatically.
* Our population growth rate.. oh wait. all those ****** people on the internet that act like you've gotta be ****** around and having kids all the time or you're a loser....
nevermind!
20 years ago, you didn't have 3 TV's in every home. Wait til Electric Vehicles become mainstream.
more...
fpnc
Mar 20, 09:05 PM
I do not want to enter the "debate" about whether or not DRM and copyright laws are "good" or "bad." But for everyone who believes that the creation of this software was a good thing I would like to suggest that you put your efforts into more productive things, like starting a legal defense fund for that poor individual(s) who helped create the PyMusique software.
I'd just about be willing to bet that federal law enforcement agents will be knocking on his/her door within the next few weeks. No doubt, if Apple wants to press this issue those individuals could be charged with some violation of the DMCA or laws covering internet commerce . I suppose that they could even be charged in a civil suit for violation of the iTunes Terms Of Service agreement.
Seriously, if it is true that some of these people live in the U.S. and they've used their true identities then they could be headed for real trouble. Get their legal team ready (and, of course, I know you'll all be contributing money for their defense). :)
I'd just about be willing to bet that federal law enforcement agents will be knocking on his/her door within the next few weeks. No doubt, if Apple wants to press this issue those individuals could be charged with some violation of the DMCA or laws covering internet commerce . I suppose that they could even be charged in a civil suit for violation of the iTunes Terms Of Service agreement.
Seriously, if it is true that some of these people live in the U.S. and they've used their true identities then they could be headed for real trouble. Get their legal team ready (and, of course, I know you'll all be contributing money for their defense). :)
more...
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
more...
.Andy
Apr 24, 10:32 PM
And just to be clear, I DID NOT make a 35 on the ACT my Junior year of high school, and I am not on scholarship to a top 25 university.
happy now? :cool:
An intellectual heavy weight right here in Macrumors! Who would have thought it!
happy now? :cool:
An intellectual heavy weight right here in Macrumors! Who would have thought it!
Liquorpuki
Mar 14, 08:50 PM
That might be my point.
What's your point? Circular reasoning?
That's like arguing the problem with medicine is that the patients are diagnosed by doctors
The problem with education is the students are taught by teachers
etc
What's your point? Circular reasoning?
That's like arguing the problem with medicine is that the patients are diagnosed by doctors
The problem with education is the students are taught by teachers
etc
more...
sbarton
Sep 20, 09:40 AM
Someone help me out here. Why do some of you insist on "tuners" in this type of device. What good are they for Cable and Satelite users? I mean, at best you could tune in the analog signals on a basic cable subscription, but most cable companies are all digital now and you can't tune in *hit without one of thier set-top cable boxes. Same goes for satelite.
gorgeousninja
Apr 9, 09:20 PM
So I guess you don't watch movies, TV shows, go to the pub/bar, visit museums or browse the inte...
Hmmm ;)
I think it is precisely that so many people do enjoy, not only playing games, but going to the movies, bars etc that what is considered 'hard-core' gaming has become marginalized and frankly irrelevant.
Many many people, myself included' have spent endless hours playing games on both consoles and custom gaming rigs. I take issue when someone who knows nothing about me suggests that because I now have that same need satisfied by an iOS device means that I know nothing about gaming, whereas it is far more the case of 'been there done that'.
The stereotype of a person describing themselves as a 'hardcore gamer' being an adolescent boy with more disposable income than social skills seems, unfortunately, to be more than justified by some of the posts written here.
As someone pointed out a true 'hardcore gamer' plays games..full stop.
Games such as 'Bejewelled' and the Zynga 'Farmville' Facebook games, are played for hours and hours and hours, by millions of mainly women, who would never think of describing themselves as 'gamers', and yet to ignore that market sector, or the iOS devices is not only commercial suicide, but shows an ignorance of where the true future of gaming lies.
Hmmm ;)
I think it is precisely that so many people do enjoy, not only playing games, but going to the movies, bars etc that what is considered 'hard-core' gaming has become marginalized and frankly irrelevant.
Many many people, myself included' have spent endless hours playing games on both consoles and custom gaming rigs. I take issue when someone who knows nothing about me suggests that because I now have that same need satisfied by an iOS device means that I know nothing about gaming, whereas it is far more the case of 'been there done that'.
The stereotype of a person describing themselves as a 'hardcore gamer' being an adolescent boy with more disposable income than social skills seems, unfortunately, to be more than justified by some of the posts written here.
As someone pointed out a true 'hardcore gamer' plays games..full stop.
Games such as 'Bejewelled' and the Zynga 'Farmville' Facebook games, are played for hours and hours and hours, by millions of mainly women, who would never think of describing themselves as 'gamers', and yet to ignore that market sector, or the iOS devices is not only commercial suicide, but shows an ignorance of where the true future of gaming lies.
Gelfin
Mar 25, 01:26 PM
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
more...
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 06:32 PM
Maybe not in the New Testament, but certainly in the Old.
Nope, not in the Old Testament either. There is a recounting of events which say what happened, but there is no commandment from God to "urge the believers to battle. If there are among you 20 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 200...... And if there are among you 100 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 1000 of those who have disbelieved...(qur'an 8:65) to this day.
The New Testament Abrogates the Old Testament anyway, so it's not relevant to Christians.
Nope, not in the Old Testament either. There is a recounting of events which say what happened, but there is no commandment from God to "urge the believers to battle. If there are among you 20 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 200...... And if there are among you 100 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 1000 of those who have disbelieved...(qur'an 8:65) to this day.
The New Testament Abrogates the Old Testament anyway, so it's not relevant to Christians.
wordoflife
Mar 13, 01:48 AM
I hope the best for Japan. The pictures and videos are very horrifying and saddening.
more...
stcanard
Mar 18, 03:52 PM
Suggesting that Apple isn't concerned about DRM any further than needed to appease the record labels is ridiculous. Apple doesn't care about the integrity of its business model unless the RIAA is on on its back?
The DRM has nothing to do with ITMS's business model.
You've been able to strip the DRM out of these for ages (without the burn/rip cycle). All of these songs exist on the various P2P networks. People are still buying from the store.
If you build your business model on the assumption that everybody is a thief, you just become as hated as the RIAA.
Apple understands this. Its worked very well with the software sales (after all there is no copy protection on their consumer apps). It's working with song sales. All you have to do is hit the right price / feature point.
The DRM has nothing to do with ITMS's business model.
You've been able to strip the DRM out of these for ages (without the burn/rip cycle). All of these songs exist on the various P2P networks. People are still buying from the store.
If you build your business model on the assumption that everybody is a thief, you just become as hated as the RIAA.
Apple understands this. Its worked very well with the software sales (after all there is no copy protection on their consumer apps). It's working with song sales. All you have to do is hit the right price / feature point.
more...
Liquorpuki
Mar 14, 08:50 PM
That might be my point.
What's your point? Circular reasoning?
That's like arguing the problem with medicine is that the patients are diagnosed by doctors
The problem with education is the students are taught by teachers
etc
What's your point? Circular reasoning?
That's like arguing the problem with medicine is that the patients are diagnosed by doctors
The problem with education is the students are taught by teachers
etc
more...
Senbei
Jul 13, 09:54 AM
I don't get the bubble that many Apple fans seem to live in, where Apple can short-change you with crippled hardware at premium prices (which they have done) and get away with it.
Some of us don't live in a bubble and do understand that we pay a premium for the entire Mac experience (combination of hardware and software design as opposed to flat raw speed). That experience isn't 100% perfect but what else in life is?
As far as the clearly delineated and simplified product stratification, many are still bound by muscle memory :D ever since Jobs collapsed Apple's once dizzying hardware line into that simple 4-grid matrix of consumer and professional (with the exception of the Cube in the past, Xserve, and the "entry level" mini).
For me, I hope Apple breaks out of this annoying (and limiting) matrix once all of the Core 2 family are out on the table and offers maybe just a few more form factor choices (taking advantage of each processors TDP envelope in the design) as opposed to the current stratification based primarily around the prevention of product cannibilization via an imaginary consumer versus professional distinction. The good thing is we'll know Apple's plans real soon.
Some of us don't live in a bubble and do understand that we pay a premium for the entire Mac experience (combination of hardware and software design as opposed to flat raw speed). That experience isn't 100% perfect but what else in life is?
As far as the clearly delineated and simplified product stratification, many are still bound by muscle memory :D ever since Jobs collapsed Apple's once dizzying hardware line into that simple 4-grid matrix of consumer and professional (with the exception of the Cube in the past, Xserve, and the "entry level" mini).
For me, I hope Apple breaks out of this annoying (and limiting) matrix once all of the Core 2 family are out on the table and offers maybe just a few more form factor choices (taking advantage of each processors TDP envelope in the design) as opposed to the current stratification based primarily around the prevention of product cannibilization via an imaginary consumer versus professional distinction. The good thing is we'll know Apple's plans real soon.
more...
NT1440
Mar 16, 10:58 AM
For those of you advocating the elimination or reduction of nuke power, just realize that the only feasible alternative currently is...
Drill baby, drill!
While I have misgivings about Nuclear power I do think it is a good midrange solution to our problems until we can solve our battery problems (thus enabling true renewable energy sources to be viable), drilling isn't a viable solution to anything.
The US doesn't have the resources to provide for our society on our own. Not to mention that the whole process of drilling can take decades (meaning 10+ years, not something like 20+) to play through to the point where steady production can begin. You can't just go out and drill, even if you find something you have to set up the supporting infrastructure first before it is viable.
Drill baby, drill!
While I have misgivings about Nuclear power I do think it is a good midrange solution to our problems until we can solve our battery problems (thus enabling true renewable energy sources to be viable), drilling isn't a viable solution to anything.
The US doesn't have the resources to provide for our society on our own. Not to mention that the whole process of drilling can take decades (meaning 10+ years, not something like 20+) to play through to the point where steady production can begin. You can't just go out and drill, even if you find something you have to set up the supporting infrastructure first before it is viable.
more...
sawah
Mar 18, 08:55 AM
Not AT&Ts fault for selling unlimited data that they've violated and chose to limit?
Stfup, you have no idea what you're talking about.
AT&T, you've stepped over the line. I've contacted my attorney about this issue months ago letting him know something needs to be done about this flagrant misuse of the word unlimited, and AT&Ts attempts to back out of their commitment.
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
Please start swearing at me. They aren't limiting your data, they are limiting where in their contract you signed, they said you could use said data. Good luck spending money on a lawyer that's not going to do anything for you.
Grow up.
Stfup, you have no idea what you're talking about.
AT&T, you've stepped over the line. I've contacted my attorney about this issue months ago letting him know something needs to be done about this flagrant misuse of the word unlimited, and AT&Ts attempts to back out of their commitment.
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
Please start swearing at me. They aren't limiting your data, they are limiting where in their contract you signed, they said you could use said data. Good luck spending money on a lawyer that's not going to do anything for you.
Grow up.
more...
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento