narco
Mar 18, 11:01 AM
How long before the CEO of Napster writes a letter to the RIAA about this? Talk about karma.
But it's still not as bad as Napster's dilemma. With iTunes, you still have to actually BUY the song for this to work. Not everyone who purchases songs from iTunes will take out the DRM, most people don't even mind or know it's there to begin with.
Fishes,
narco.
But it's still not as bad as Napster's dilemma. With iTunes, you still have to actually BUY the song for this to work. Not everyone who purchases songs from iTunes will take out the DRM, most people don't even mind or know it's there to begin with.
Fishes,
narco.
justflie
Mar 18, 11:21 AM
Ok, so my comment about what don't people understand about unlimited was super snarky. Sorry.
What I meant was, If I can use 6GB (for example, I don't use this much) on my iPhone, what's the difference between that and 3GB iPhone and 3GB iPad (tethered)? If I am "entitled" to those 6GB or 4 or whatever on an unlimited plan, why does it matter how that bandwidth is distributed among my devices?
What I meant was, If I can use 6GB (for example, I don't use this much) on my iPhone, what's the difference between that and 3GB iPhone and 3GB iPad (tethered)? If I am "entitled" to those 6GB or 4 or whatever on an unlimited plan, why does it matter how that bandwidth is distributed among my devices?
rikers_mailbox
Sep 20, 03:03 AM
If Iger is correct and iTV has a hard drive.. then I beleive iTV could serve as an external iTunes Library server/device. Authorized computers can access and manage it using iTunes (running as a client). iTS downloads, podcasts, imported physical CDs, etc would all be stored on iTV.
Look at your hard drive usage, Music takes up a significant amount of it. Why does it need to be kept on your local machine if iTV provides a network?
Look at your hard drive usage, Music takes up a significant amount of it. Why does it need to be kept on your local machine if iTV provides a network?
Gelfin
Mar 24, 11:59 PM
Subtract the individuals affiliated with gangs and the mentally unstable and we're staring at a long list of homosexuals murdered by "mainstream" individuals, many of whom attended church on a regular basis and were in fact catholic. That their religious affiliations are not immediately telegraphed is not evidence of absence, but rather of the fact that 76% of the population self-identifies as Christian.
To stretch my own analogy, it also ignores that the men who put on white hoods and terrorized black people were not "mainstream" white people either, but they were nevertheless acting on the attitudes held by "mainstream" white people. They were radical, but saw themselves as the ones with the strength of will to enforce the true will of the "mainstream." It's all very well to believe that the darkies should keep their place, but somebody's got to do the work of keeping them there when they step out of line.
However, I will return to what I touched on before: the Catholic Church (and Christian churches generally in the United States) currently have no need for terrorist thugs. They have great political influence and have convinced a significant plurality (seemingly no longer a majority, I am gratified to point out) that they are entitled to subjugate others bloodlessly and anonymously through the democratic process.
At least this is so until the courts clearly state once and for all that this is incompatible with our law and our society. Incidentally, that's also when the thugs will really come out, and you watch how many of them claim to be doing the Lord's work.
To stretch my own analogy, it also ignores that the men who put on white hoods and terrorized black people were not "mainstream" white people either, but they were nevertheless acting on the attitudes held by "mainstream" white people. They were radical, but saw themselves as the ones with the strength of will to enforce the true will of the "mainstream." It's all very well to believe that the darkies should keep their place, but somebody's got to do the work of keeping them there when they step out of line.
However, I will return to what I touched on before: the Catholic Church (and Christian churches generally in the United States) currently have no need for terrorist thugs. They have great political influence and have convinced a significant plurality (seemingly no longer a majority, I am gratified to point out) that they are entitled to subjugate others bloodlessly and anonymously through the democratic process.
At least this is so until the courts clearly state once and for all that this is incompatible with our law and our society. Incidentally, that's also when the thugs will really come out, and you watch how many of them claim to be doing the Lord's work.
AidenShaw
Oct 29, 12:33 PM
[QUOTE=AidenShaw;2994604]For example:
Thread_ID tid[4];
for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++)
{
thick hairstyles for men.
short men#39;s hairstyles with
haircuts new styles
men shaggy haircut
Cool Emo Hairstyle for Men Emo
modern hairstyles for men with
hairstyles for thick hair men
black men haircut.jpg · young mens hair styles masculine and sophisticated retro hairstyles of the bygone era of
2009 15:58:46. short
hair styles men. eawmp1
From round to square, thick to
For Men With Thick Hair.
medium hairstyles for men with
Best Hairstyles For Men With
Thread_ID tid[4];
for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++)
{
Rt&Dzine
Mar 27, 06:18 PM
According to the APA there is no sound science behind conversion therapy.
Some quotes from Nicolosi:
�If the father drops the kid and the kid gets brain damage, at least he�ll be straight. Small price to pay.�
�When we live our God-given integrity and our human dignity, there is no space for sex with a guy.�
�I do not believe that any man can ever be truly at peace in living out a homosexual orientation.�
Some quotes from Nicolosi:
�If the father drops the kid and the kid gets brain damage, at least he�ll be straight. Small price to pay.�
�When we live our God-given integrity and our human dignity, there is no space for sex with a guy.�
�I do not believe that any man can ever be truly at peace in living out a homosexual orientation.�
AlBDamned
Aug 29, 11:47 AM
Not out of sentimentality. The other pcs are so cheap, sometimes it is easier to just buy a new one.
So it's more about how effective, money-wise, it can be to buy a new computer. Doesn't really have much to do about their performance or longevity.
So it's more about how effective, money-wise, it can be to buy a new computer. Doesn't really have much to do about their performance or longevity.
ZoomZoomZoom
Sep 12, 04:19 PM
Apple gave a sneak peak of an upcoming product. Is that a flying pig I see out my window?
Yes.
Well, also, "iTV" is sort of completely unexpected. A hardware release by Apple unhyped? That would make two pigs flying outside my window.
Yes.
Well, also, "iTV" is sort of completely unexpected. A hardware release by Apple unhyped? That would make two pigs flying outside my window.
rdowns
Apr 15, 10:49 AM
Snip a bunch of made up crap from a made up book supposedly written by a made up guy.
More hate from the god squad. :rolleyes:
More hate from the god squad. :rolleyes:
yg17
Apr 23, 09:42 AM
It's easier to admit being an atheist on the Internet than in the real world, as even the Dalai Lama seems to hate atheists. Although only a fool would say in his heart "there is no god", it should be legitimate to say "I want to see proof before I believe".
Oh - and about the universe not likely being made by chance: a designer must be more advanced than what he creates, and where does the designer come from? I'm not saying that there is no such designer, just that I don't see any reason to think about that in the first place. Wouldn't it be far more likely that the universe is made by itself rather than by some creating force being made by itself?
I have no problem admitting I'm an Atheist and saying "there is no god" in the real world. Seeing how people react shows me who my real friends and family are. And fortunately no one close to me gives a crap that I'm Atheist.
Oh - and about the universe not likely being made by chance: a designer must be more advanced than what he creates, and where does the designer come from? I'm not saying that there is no such designer, just that I don't see any reason to think about that in the first place. Wouldn't it be far more likely that the universe is made by itself rather than by some creating force being made by itself?
I have no problem admitting I'm an Atheist and saying "there is no god" in the real world. Seeing how people react shows me who my real friends and family are. And fortunately no one close to me gives a crap that I'm Atheist.
mixel
Apr 9, 06:56 PM
2011 called . . .
The strength of Apple's hardware+software attracts the content. It isn't the other way around.
But is it the right content?
The sort of games that will make the iphone a legitimate threat to the competitors' products just aren't coming out in any sort of timely manner, if at all. So the devices will continue to cater to different parts of the market.. But if we want more "proper" games on iOS Apple have a hell of a lot of work to do.. They haven't set up a perfect platform for it yet.
The strength of Apple's hardware+software attracts the content. It isn't the other way around.
But is it the right content?
The sort of games that will make the iphone a legitimate threat to the competitors' products just aren't coming out in any sort of timely manner, if at all. So the devices will continue to cater to different parts of the market.. But if we want more "proper" games on iOS Apple have a hell of a lot of work to do.. They haven't set up a perfect platform for it yet.
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.
skunk
Apr 23, 04:01 PM
I'm not saying that I'm a devout Christian or anything of the sort, I'm agnostic, but it's based on Reason.It's good to hear that, unlike anybody else, you have a reason for your stance. Otherwise we might have to put you down as "intellectually lazy", too.
AidenShaw
Sep 21, 09:03 AM
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. :(
By next spring, Apple will have the rest of the Media Center - one of the "super-secret" bits of Leopard is a full clone of Microsoft's Media Center Edition, built upon a greatly enhanced Front Row. (And accompanied by a full-featured AV remote.)
The iTV is just Apple's copy of Microsoft's "Media Center Extender" and/or "Media Center Connect" (see Media Center Extender or Windows Media Connect. Which Do You Need? (http://www.mediacenterpcworld.com/news/218)) or Intel's wireless extender that will be part of the Viiv platform.
Leopard has the other piece - the real multiple tuner support and PVR system.
Couple that with a dual-core Conroe in a TiVo-sized box, and you'll have the option of a dedicated Apple Media Center in the living room, or the "iTV" feeding from the Apple Media Center in the office.
Windows Media Center Edition supports up to five extenders. Apple certainly will do the same, so whether you choose the Conroe HTPC pizza-box, or a bigger Mac in the office - TVs throughout the house can access the single copy of the media library with "iTV" boxes.
By next spring, Apple will have the rest of the Media Center - one of the "super-secret" bits of Leopard is a full clone of Microsoft's Media Center Edition, built upon a greatly enhanced Front Row. (And accompanied by a full-featured AV remote.)
The iTV is just Apple's copy of Microsoft's "Media Center Extender" and/or "Media Center Connect" (see Media Center Extender or Windows Media Connect. Which Do You Need? (http://www.mediacenterpcworld.com/news/218)) or Intel's wireless extender that will be part of the Viiv platform.
Leopard has the other piece - the real multiple tuner support and PVR system.
Couple that with a dual-core Conroe in a TiVo-sized box, and you'll have the option of a dedicated Apple Media Center in the living room, or the "iTV" feeding from the Apple Media Center in the office.
Windows Media Center Edition supports up to five extenders. Apple certainly will do the same, so whether you choose the Conroe HTPC pizza-box, or a bigger Mac in the office - TVs throughout the house can access the single copy of the media library with "iTV" boxes.
firestarter
Mar 13, 02:09 PM
But how do you proponents of nuclear power discount the very real risks it poses to mankind itself? War and terrorism especially. HUGE accident(s) waiting to happen.
If you choose not to have nuclear power, you're choosing to have oil - and all the problems that brings with it.
I can't recall a war fought over nuclear power, but we're living through one driven by our need to access cheap oil (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece).
Do you think that our heavy handed approach to Persian Gulf politics increases or decreases the threat of terrorism? Although we've been keen to see regime change in Egypt and Libya, there's no way we'll assist any sort of change in Saudi - since we need the oil. Yet most of the 9/11 hijackers were disaffected Saudi men! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks)
So I think your argument that nuclear power increases the threat of terrorism and war is naive, given that the only other option is oil - which most definitely does!
If you choose not to have nuclear power, you're choosing to have oil - and all the problems that brings with it.
I can't recall a war fought over nuclear power, but we're living through one driven by our need to access cheap oil (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece).
Do you think that our heavy handed approach to Persian Gulf politics increases or decreases the threat of terrorism? Although we've been keen to see regime change in Egypt and Libya, there's no way we'll assist any sort of change in Saudi - since we need the oil. Yet most of the 9/11 hijackers were disaffected Saudi men! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks)
So I think your argument that nuclear power increases the threat of terrorism and war is naive, given that the only other option is oil - which most definitely does!
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
BornAgainMac
May 6, 06:31 AM
Maybe it isn't AT&T but the iPhone caller that is bragging about his iPhone, iMac, Apple, and Microsoft is dead, Flash sucks, Google copies... <click>
entatlrg
Mar 13, 02:04 PM
Perfectly fine using the new designs that run safer and can even recycle their own waste. I would not have dismissed the entire car industry just because the early models lacked safety features and had high fatality and breakdown rates. It's early days still for the nuclear power industry. We do need to work on uranium mining and milling practices, however.
Automobile safety features and breakdowns compared to nuclear disaster.
Huh?
Automobile safety features and breakdowns compared to nuclear disaster.
Huh?
Multimedia
Oct 12, 10:51 AM
Hmph... I haven't been to the Dell forums in a while or I probably wouldv'e seen that. Oh, well. Already ordered my other 30" display the other day, I'm not going to complain. :cool:Did you just get the 2007 model? If so how do you like it? Can't you lobby sales to give you the credit? You bought while the coupon was in effect - just overlooked it. It's another $96 off man. Worth asking about. Get one first then call sales.
aristobrat
Mar 18, 12:48 PM
But if you advertise unlimited as At&t does and did, it should be unlimited no matter what (Slimey) lawyer drafts a document meant to swindle people is signed.
starflyer
Apr 15, 10:58 AM
and 8 morons hit the "negative" button. That's why videos like this are necessary. Because there are a lot of stupid people out there who don't understand the world as it is.
Maybe they hit negative because they think it's sad that something like this even has to exist.
Maybe they hit negative because they think it's sad that something like this even has to exist.
SandynJosh
Apr 9, 02:03 PM
Um... it is actually.
Hardcore is defined as the "the most active member of a group or sub-class of individuals" used an an adjective as it is in hardcore gamer that means "the most active gamer".
Hardcore means the gamers that game the most. If you have a Mac there is a great dictionary app built in.
Here's what a hardcore gamer is: ;)
Hardcore is defined as the "the most active member of a group or sub-class of individuals" used an an adjective as it is in hardcore gamer that means "the most active gamer".
Hardcore means the gamers that game the most. If you have a Mac there is a great dictionary app built in.
Here's what a hardcore gamer is: ;)
TroyBoy30
May 14, 07:25 AM
There is only 1 spot in the ATL where I drop calls, but I leave my phone on edge so maybe that's why
lifeinhd
Apr 12, 10:25 PM
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/10/22/timeline-tweak-returns-imovie-11-to-old-school/
...oh. Of course I have '09 :rolleyes:
...oh. Of course I have '09 :rolleyes:
