Blakeasd
Apr 16, 10:06 AM
The problem I had with switching was only bottom corner resizing, however this is fixed in OS X Lion
coal
Sep 20, 12:42 AM
So this can play any video file in iTunes then? Great, that's what I was waiting to hear. For some reason I convinved myself that Apple would only permit videos tagged as originating from their store. I know it sounds ridiculous, but as media companies keep pushing for control over content, it seemed inevitable that such restrictions would be enforced (particularly since Tivo Series 3 is such a closed system).
Also, hard drive? Wow.
Also, hard drive? Wow.
citizenzen
Apr 23, 11:37 PM
Whatever:rolleyes: ... Like I care that you think I am an idiot ...
For what it's worth, I don't think you're an idiot.
You simply made a statement that I'm not willing to make.
For what it's worth, I don't think you're an idiot.
You simply made a statement that I'm not willing to make.
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 15, 01:20 PM
We're placing more importance on the bullying of gays because of the historical and widespread discrimination, hatred, and violence that gays have had to endure (and still endure) that obese people have not. We discussed this 8 pages ago.
So let me get this straight.
Fat people are CONSTANTLY harassed but because the media doesn't report on every fat persons suicide or pain we are now directing to to the Gay community because the media jumps on it. I find this absolutely trash. How about we do something about suicide in America period. Soldiers killing themselves, teens killing themselves over Facebook.
Refers back to my previous post, the Gay community needs to stop singling themselves out.
So let me get this straight.
Fat people are CONSTANTLY harassed but because the media doesn't report on every fat persons suicide or pain we are now directing to to the Gay community because the media jumps on it. I find this absolutely trash. How about we do something about suicide in America period. Soldiers killing themselves, teens killing themselves over Facebook.
Refers back to my previous post, the Gay community needs to stop singling themselves out.
balamw
Apr 16, 09:39 AM
I received my refurb iPad 1 yesterday and was very impressed with how Apple packages their refurbs. Nice!
You would be more impressed with the regular retail packaging. It's like what they use or refurbs, but even more Apple-like.
B
You would be more impressed with the regular retail packaging. It's like what they use or refurbs, but even more Apple-like.
B
eternlgladiator
Mar 11, 08:57 AM
+1
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
I thought it was appropriate for this line. It's not in my main repertoire but I thought it worked.
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
I thought it was appropriate for this line. It's not in my main repertoire but I thought it worked.
Apple 26.2
Apr 15, 04:09 PM
Whatever differences exist, you'll get used to them.
brianus
Oct 3, 09:30 AM
Not helpful and wrong.
The most efficent use of the riser slots are dual rank FB-DIMMs and 4 of them. So 4 1GB sticks or 4 2GB sticks.
Four FB-DIMMs is the sweet spot between memory bandwidth and latency, based on tests.
Hey just curious about your sig, how is your 1TB RAID set up in the Mac Pro?
The most efficent use of the riser slots are dual rank FB-DIMMs and 4 of them. So 4 1GB sticks or 4 2GB sticks.
Four FB-DIMMs is the sweet spot between memory bandwidth and latency, based on tests.
Hey just curious about your sig, how is your 1TB RAID set up in the Mac Pro?
Mord
Mar 13, 02:55 PM
Traditional light water fission? No, I'm generally against it.
Modern reactors that process spent fuel and thorium cycle reactors? Hell yes.
Writing off nuclear in all it's forms is like writing off the future of the human race, we just need to go for sensible safe reactor designs and hopefully develop fusion to the point of being a practical solution.
The vast majority of nuclear power plants are designed to produce weapons grade plutonium and uranium, these designs are neither particularly safe or efficient and there are far far better options.
Modern reactors that process spent fuel and thorium cycle reactors? Hell yes.
Writing off nuclear in all it's forms is like writing off the future of the human race, we just need to go for sensible safe reactor designs and hopefully develop fusion to the point of being a practical solution.
The vast majority of nuclear power plants are designed to produce weapons grade plutonium and uranium, these designs are neither particularly safe or efficient and there are far far better options.
gopher
Oct 7, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
These test that this guy puts up are crap! The Athlon is overclocked to be a 2100+, none of the systems have the most current OS. I personally have seen great variations in his tests over the years, and personally, I don't buy it. Why test for single processor functions? The Dual is a DUAL! All of the major Apps are dual aware, as is the OS!
Try that with XP Home.
Well so can the G4 be overclocked. So what's your point? Big whoop, overclock all you like, but we are talking about systems sold by manufacturers. To learn more about overclocking Macs, visit http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/
These test that this guy puts up are crap! The Athlon is overclocked to be a 2100+, none of the systems have the most current OS. I personally have seen great variations in his tests over the years, and personally, I don't buy it. Why test for single processor functions? The Dual is a DUAL! All of the major Apps are dual aware, as is the OS!
Try that with XP Home.
Well so can the G4 be overclocked. So what's your point? Big whoop, overclock all you like, but we are talking about systems sold by manufacturers. To learn more about overclocking Macs, visit http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/
HBOC
Mar 11, 01:44 AM
Scary. The videos they are showing are just incredible. Hopefully the worst of it is over and the loss of life is minimal.
My thoughts and prayers are with everyone over there.
I am betting the death toll is going to be in the tens of thousands, but let's hope I am horribly wrong.
My thoughts and prayers are with everyone over there.
I am betting the death toll is going to be in the tens of thousands, but let's hope I am horribly wrong.
res1233
May 2, 03:24 PM
I love how you all pretend like this is the first piece of intrusive software (Malware) for Macs or like there's no such thing as a virus for Mac...
I'll just leave this right here...http://www.clamxav.com/
if anyone knows a better one let me know, thnx.
Dude, the only viruses antivirus software ever pick up are Windows viruses, to prevent them from being passed along unintentionally to windows users. Most of what "antivirus" software does for macs is catch other forms of malware which are not viruses. This is part of the confusion about what the word "virus" means. The correct term for this software should be "antimalware", but the average consumer wouldn't know what that is if they saw it, so the misinformation continues.
I'll just leave this right here...http://www.clamxav.com/
if anyone knows a better one let me know, thnx.
Dude, the only viruses antivirus software ever pick up are Windows viruses, to prevent them from being passed along unintentionally to windows users. Most of what "antivirus" software does for macs is catch other forms of malware which are not viruses. This is part of the confusion about what the word "virus" means. The correct term for this software should be "antimalware", but the average consumer wouldn't know what that is if they saw it, so the misinformation continues.
AlligatorBloodz
Apr 9, 08:08 PM
Apple are all about building integration and eco systems. Their visions of the future of consumer electronics... or post PC devices is iOS. If a family of five buys into that ecosystem they already have iPhone's, they already have iPads, they already have iPods and if they don't... they're probably going to buy one.
If you approach it with a closed mind you won't understand it. You clearly don't which is why you've reeled off the predictable reply about current cost/usage.
Sorry I have such a small brain.
Apple really messed up hiring those 2 guys with years of experience working in the gaming industry. They could have just hired you. A person who has all the answers and can see the future.
In all seriousness. I am a gamer and a consumer, and if Apple wants to make gaming a MORE serious part of there business, then I want a controller with buttons and a console or someway to stream off of the Internet.
If you approach it with a closed mind you won't understand it. You clearly don't which is why you've reeled off the predictable reply about current cost/usage.
Sorry I have such a small brain.
Apple really messed up hiring those 2 guys with years of experience working in the gaming industry. They could have just hired you. A person who has all the answers and can see the future.
In all seriousness. I am a gamer and a consumer, and if Apple wants to make gaming a MORE serious part of there business, then I want a controller with buttons and a console or someway to stream off of the Internet.
Multimedia
Sep 27, 08:37 PM
Surprised to see this thread come to a grinding hault after only 145 posts. I pledge right here and now to be one of the first to buy a NEW 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pro as soon as it becomes available. I will not wait for them to go refrub although I will probably wait for them to come with iLife '07 if they are added to the BTO page before the January 9th SteveNote.
I turn 60 on January 12th. :) Happy Birthday to me it will be. :eek: :D
I turn 60 on January 12th. :) Happy Birthday to me it will be. :eek: :D
jettredmont
May 3, 03:44 PM
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
crees!
Aug 29, 12:41 PM
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). And do I care? Nah. Not one bit.
OllyW
Mar 12, 04:49 AM
Thanks Olly, I was wondering how hydrogen could exlode, not exactly flammable really is it?
You had said "it was just some hydrogen tanks which exploded" and mac jones seemed concerned that the whole reactor had blown up. I was just adding some updates to the thread which seemed to make more sense of the situation based on the limited information available.
Sorry if it wasn't up to scratch.
You had said "it was just some hydrogen tanks which exploded" and mac jones seemed concerned that the whole reactor had blown up. I was just adding some updates to the thread which seemed to make more sense of the situation based on the limited information available.
Sorry if it wasn't up to scratch.
1town
Apr 28, 07:58 AM
Horrible headline.
You do not "slip" upwards.
You do not "slip" upwards.
cambox
Apr 13, 12:36 PM
Original post by gusapple
I think that this is counter-intuitive. By a long shot. Why would Apple leave their customer base? They still are including all of their "smoke and mirrors" but with a dumbed down option. All that I can see from it is that file management is FINALLY going to be better than a manual system. And anyways, Apple updated the UI from something that was popular in 2000 to something that looks better for today. Plus, there are lots of people who want to start using Pro apps but don't know how. I think that it is awesome that Apple is creating interest in an industry that will grow rapidly in the next few years.
I think what you are talking about is called Imovie? Accessible by 10 year olds and its wonderful for that and for people who do weddings etc, but in my world we use the traditional layout because it works just fine and why fix something thats not broken? 64 bit is great and yes we need that but not the shinny useless bits that kids want on the iphones, ipads and Garageband. I think Apple has lost the plot here and also lost the respect of pro app users..well those who truly are pro FCP users.
I think that this is counter-intuitive. By a long shot. Why would Apple leave their customer base? They still are including all of their "smoke and mirrors" but with a dumbed down option. All that I can see from it is that file management is FINALLY going to be better than a manual system. And anyways, Apple updated the UI from something that was popular in 2000 to something that looks better for today. Plus, there are lots of people who want to start using Pro apps but don't know how. I think that it is awesome that Apple is creating interest in an industry that will grow rapidly in the next few years.
I think what you are talking about is called Imovie? Accessible by 10 year olds and its wonderful for that and for people who do weddings etc, but in my world we use the traditional layout because it works just fine and why fix something thats not broken? 64 bit is great and yes we need that but not the shinny useless bits that kids want on the iphones, ipads and Garageband. I think Apple has lost the plot here and also lost the respect of pro app users..well those who truly are pro FCP users.
skunk
Apr 26, 05:38 PM
I could murder some toast.
skunk
Mar 27, 07:46 PM
If I've harmed anyone in anyone in any way, I want to hear about that from the harmed ones. Everyone here is welcome to his opinion about me. If anyone here hates me, he's welcome to say so publicly or privately. But I think I'm the only one here who knows whether I hate anyone. We're strangers to one another.I do not hate you in the least, but I do recognise hateful, dogmatic propaganda when I see it.
Mister Snitch
Apr 9, 11:46 AM
I am firmly against poaching executives. They should always be deep-fried.
matticus008
Mar 20, 02:53 PM
The first part of you statement is not a very intelligent one. If you believe a law to be immoral or against the freedom of the people then it is your duty especially in this country to stand up against it, not cower away and create a separate place to dwell. If everyone took your stance then when major changes need to happen to our laws people would have gathered together to leave the country instead of trying to work and fix the problem and raise awareness of the problem.
Yes, they would. Most countries are started because the old one was unjust or inadequate in some regard. Working to change the law is not the same as breaking the law. You have every right to write to your Congressmen, lobby whomever you'd like, and voice your protest against the law. You do not have the right to break it.
Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.
You can think for yourself all you like, but the law is still the law. If you choose to break it, then you choose to break it, but that does NOT make the law irrelevant. You are breaking the law. That is my only point.
Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.
PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak
If you'd read more carefully, you would see that I didn't say that we aren't living in a society dominated by the strong. You would see that I was pointing out that no laws at all would make the situation even worse. The RIAA is not the government or the law. They might have successfully lobbied for it, but the law is well within their rights as the owners of the music. Take a step back and look at the rest of the law. Are murderers caught and taken away? When people steal something from you, are they not caught and not prosecuted? Do people regularly go around, shooting and stealing, with no one to stop them? The answer might be "sometimes," but with your "think for yourself attitude" the answer would be "all the time." People would do whatever they had the power to do, because there would be no consequences and no one to protect the weak at all. The main point of that part of my answer was to point out your argument failure: the fallacy of argument from ignorance (that your own evidence can be used AGAINST you, rendering it invalid).
By that logic, women would still not be able to vote. Look at other societies that do not allow people to protest "unjust" laws. Compare where they stand to where we stand. I am simply trying to take us further still down the road of freedom for all humans. Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans is a Bad Thing�. DRM, by definition, falls into this category.
That, sir, is a load of crap. The law allowed only men above 21 to vote. Women were not covered in that. Therefore, the rights of women were constricted. This is not the case. You have "fair use" laws, and DRM laws to protect fair use. The DRM laws do not narrow your scope of access to those "fair use" laws--and if you have a problem with fair use, bring it up with someone who will do something about it. You also don't live in a society where you are not allowed to protest. Sit ins and marches during the Civil Rights movement were entirely legal forms of protest for the most part. "Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans" is NOT a bad thing. Again, the reason we have society is because we have rule of law. Restrictions on actions protect the freedoms of others who cannot secure those freedoms on their own. DRM has nothing to do with "the natural association of humans," either, so I don't know where you're going here.
Again, I am bound by these laws but I do not need to AGREE with them. Do you agree with them? [That is a direct question btw.]
All actions (free or not free) require sacrifices. So what is your point?
It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not. You don't have the right to break them. I do believe in the law, I believe DRM protects artists in theory, and I do not believe that people have any excuse for breaking the law in this case. It is not a social injustice, it is not a repressive law, and it is not your natural right to do whatever you want with something that does not belong to you (the music of others). I believe that DRM is flawed because not every stereo, car, computer, music player, cell phone, PDA, internet appliance, and jukebox in existence is compatible with one another, making it difficult to listen to your music in all of those environments. But the competition is the best form of "free association" available: you're given a choice how to get your music. Not all of it works with all of your devices, but that part is up to you. If I buy a book written in Russian, it's my fault that I can't read Russian and assuming I can't translate it (which is very time consuming), I have to buy it again in English. That's the way it is, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's freedoms.
Option C (Something Different): Think for yourself and live life according to your own laws
I will take C cuz it allows for both A & B while reserving my ability to think for myself.
Neither options A nor B restrict your ability to think for yourself. What option C does is make you liable to punishment and prosecution. Live life how you feel is best, but understand that if and when you choose to break a law (we all do it, and speeding is a perfect example), you might benefit from it, but you also have to prepared to pay the fines when you get caught. Do I really care about people stealing music? No, I'm not the RIAA. Do I think it's ridiculous that people can rationalize it to the point where they think they're entitled to it, or that it's acceptable to break the law for their own convenience, or worst of all, that they're not really even breaking a law? Abso-freaking-lutely.
Yes, they would. Most countries are started because the old one was unjust or inadequate in some regard. Working to change the law is not the same as breaking the law. You have every right to write to your Congressmen, lobby whomever you'd like, and voice your protest against the law. You do not have the right to break it.
Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.
You can think for yourself all you like, but the law is still the law. If you choose to break it, then you choose to break it, but that does NOT make the law irrelevant. You are breaking the law. That is my only point.
Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.
PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak
If you'd read more carefully, you would see that I didn't say that we aren't living in a society dominated by the strong. You would see that I was pointing out that no laws at all would make the situation even worse. The RIAA is not the government or the law. They might have successfully lobbied for it, but the law is well within their rights as the owners of the music. Take a step back and look at the rest of the law. Are murderers caught and taken away? When people steal something from you, are they not caught and not prosecuted? Do people regularly go around, shooting and stealing, with no one to stop them? The answer might be "sometimes," but with your "think for yourself attitude" the answer would be "all the time." People would do whatever they had the power to do, because there would be no consequences and no one to protect the weak at all. The main point of that part of my answer was to point out your argument failure: the fallacy of argument from ignorance (that your own evidence can be used AGAINST you, rendering it invalid).
By that logic, women would still not be able to vote. Look at other societies that do not allow people to protest "unjust" laws. Compare where they stand to where we stand. I am simply trying to take us further still down the road of freedom for all humans. Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans is a Bad Thing�. DRM, by definition, falls into this category.
That, sir, is a load of crap. The law allowed only men above 21 to vote. Women were not covered in that. Therefore, the rights of women were constricted. This is not the case. You have "fair use" laws, and DRM laws to protect fair use. The DRM laws do not narrow your scope of access to those "fair use" laws--and if you have a problem with fair use, bring it up with someone who will do something about it. You also don't live in a society where you are not allowed to protest. Sit ins and marches during the Civil Rights movement were entirely legal forms of protest for the most part. "Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans" is NOT a bad thing. Again, the reason we have society is because we have rule of law. Restrictions on actions protect the freedoms of others who cannot secure those freedoms on their own. DRM has nothing to do with "the natural association of humans," either, so I don't know where you're going here.
Again, I am bound by these laws but I do not need to AGREE with them. Do you agree with them? [That is a direct question btw.]
All actions (free or not free) require sacrifices. So what is your point?
It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not. You don't have the right to break them. I do believe in the law, I believe DRM protects artists in theory, and I do not believe that people have any excuse for breaking the law in this case. It is not a social injustice, it is not a repressive law, and it is not your natural right to do whatever you want with something that does not belong to you (the music of others). I believe that DRM is flawed because not every stereo, car, computer, music player, cell phone, PDA, internet appliance, and jukebox in existence is compatible with one another, making it difficult to listen to your music in all of those environments. But the competition is the best form of "free association" available: you're given a choice how to get your music. Not all of it works with all of your devices, but that part is up to you. If I buy a book written in Russian, it's my fault that I can't read Russian and assuming I can't translate it (which is very time consuming), I have to buy it again in English. That's the way it is, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's freedoms.
Option C (Something Different): Think for yourself and live life according to your own laws
I will take C cuz it allows for both A & B while reserving my ability to think for myself.
Neither options A nor B restrict your ability to think for yourself. What option C does is make you liable to punishment and prosecution. Live life how you feel is best, but understand that if and when you choose to break a law (we all do it, and speeding is a perfect example), you might benefit from it, but you also have to prepared to pay the fines when you get caught. Do I really care about people stealing music? No, I'm not the RIAA. Do I think it's ridiculous that people can rationalize it to the point where they think they're entitled to it, or that it's acceptable to break the law for their own convenience, or worst of all, that they're not really even breaking a law? Abso-freaking-lutely.
gweedo
Sep 12, 04:51 PM
Does anyone know if Apple will be providing some kind of developer toolkit for this "iTV" device? I sure hope so, I can think of a number of neat ways to put this device to work, not the least of which is a Tivo-like module. :cool:
All in all it sounds like a neat little unit, with an fairly good price. I'll have to buy me a XServe with some XRaid's so I can put my entire DVD library into it. ;)
All in all it sounds like a neat little unit, with an fairly good price. I'll have to buy me a XServe with some XRaid's so I can put my entire DVD library into it. ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment