BuddyTronic
Jan 23, 01:30 AM
I tried installing the android sdk, it is the usual linux crapfest of having to fix and tweak everything. After 1 hour I still could not get it working. Absolutely appalling, makes me wonder about google. Aapl wants max lockdown on all their **** but at least it works.
IntelliUser
Apr 15, 10:23 AM
Whats the line in the sand? Are Gay men, simply men who find other men attractive? Do they share partial brain chemistry similar to a woman? Are some Gay Men "women trapped in men's bodies"? None of the above? We havent walked in their shoes...so defining what IS and ISNT a disease is pretty ignorant. glad we're all talking about these issues though...stay well friend and keep posting! :)
As long as they have a penis, gay men are men. Just like this (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/06/article-0-027FFAE600000578-658_468x657.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1052934/Cat-Man--human-tiger-enjoys-climbing-trees-eats-raw-meat-day.html&usg=__Ab-ZG2dpwk5CloR7Ey8dB0Cy2K4=&h=657&w=468&sz=114&hl=en&start=0&sig2=zhq5-T3iRhJWvKy7Hwtz-A&zoom=1&tbnid=17KAnJDFBLLCWM:&tbnh=156&tbnw=118&ei=VWKoTYalI9Gq8APuw_3LCg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcat%2Bman%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26biw%3D999%26bih%3D1033%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=131&vpy=102&dur=3662&hovh=266&hovw=189&tx=85&ty=130&oei=VWKoTYalI9Gq8APuw_3LCg&page=1&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0) guy is a man, no matter how hard he tries not to be. Thinking otherwise is a sign of delusion, of a mental problem. And psychiatrists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder) agree with that.
As long as they have a penis, gay men are men. Just like this (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/06/article-0-027FFAE600000578-658_468x657.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1052934/Cat-Man--human-tiger-enjoys-climbing-trees-eats-raw-meat-day.html&usg=__Ab-ZG2dpwk5CloR7Ey8dB0Cy2K4=&h=657&w=468&sz=114&hl=en&start=0&sig2=zhq5-T3iRhJWvKy7Hwtz-A&zoom=1&tbnid=17KAnJDFBLLCWM:&tbnh=156&tbnw=118&ei=VWKoTYalI9Gq8APuw_3LCg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcat%2Bman%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26biw%3D999%26bih%3D1033%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=131&vpy=102&dur=3662&hovh=266&hovw=189&tx=85&ty=130&oei=VWKoTYalI9Gq8APuw_3LCg&page=1&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0) guy is a man, no matter how hard he tries not to be. Thinking otherwise is a sign of delusion, of a mental problem. And psychiatrists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder) agree with that.
CorvusCamenarum
Mar 25, 02:36 PM
On the contrary, our own Supreme Court has held it to be a fundamental right, and the United States through its treaty making power has also held it as a right through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 16).
Got a source for that?
Is voting also a privilege?
Of course not, but then again, I've never needed a license to vote. Have you?
The fact that something is licensed does not change it from a right to a privilege.
If it were a right, one would not need a license in the first place. A license implies the privilege it confers can be revoked at any time, such as driving, operating a boat, driving a forklift, operating a vehicle with air brakes, hunting, fishing, carrying a concealed weapon, owning a weapon (in your country), or having a television (again in your country). Obviously, not an exhaustive list. Conversely, I do not require a license to speak my mind in public, worship as I choose, have counsel present in the face of criminal proceedings, etc. Similarly, the state can decide not to issue me a license if I do not meet the criteria for obtaining one, and marriage falls under this purview.
Got a source for that?
Is voting also a privilege?
Of course not, but then again, I've never needed a license to vote. Have you?
The fact that something is licensed does not change it from a right to a privilege.
If it were a right, one would not need a license in the first place. A license implies the privilege it confers can be revoked at any time, such as driving, operating a boat, driving a forklift, operating a vehicle with air brakes, hunting, fishing, carrying a concealed weapon, owning a weapon (in your country), or having a television (again in your country). Obviously, not an exhaustive list. Conversely, I do not require a license to speak my mind in public, worship as I choose, have counsel present in the face of criminal proceedings, etc. Similarly, the state can decide not to issue me a license if I do not meet the criteria for obtaining one, and marriage falls under this purview.
_760x480.jpg "2 Wallpaper Call of Duty")
prograham
Oct 25, 10:42 PM
Well based on nothing really except I've been using apple a long time, worked in their retail stores for a while, and know how they like to be cutting edge (yet dependable and pretty), I'd say count on 8 cores for xmas. Maybe not november, but maybe so. I think the thought alone of HP and Dell releasing prosumer workstations with 8 cores leaving Apple behind when Vista launches is just too much to let slide for Apple.
lilo777
Apr 20, 09:03 PM
Just curious what NFC does in any Android device currently?
Of course you can work hard to drain the phones battery but LTE is draining the phones battery without trying. Nothing wrong with that, but Apple focuses on a single model and they have a set of requirements that they wish to achieve (battery life being awesome is one of them!).
If you don't like it, don't buy it, I guess?
Quote: "Google has begun distributing stickers with near field communication (NFC) technology to businesses throughout Austin, Texas as part of its Google Places roll out. The stickers allow users to tap their NFC-equipped phone on the sticker and access content and information relevant to the local business.
The stickers are manufactured by Smartag and measure 80mm x 50mm (3.15 in x 1.97 in) in size. Users who have the Google Places app on their smartphones will be able to see the business' address, phone number, hours of business, types of payment accepted, reviews, and more. The user also has the ability to rate and review the business right from their mobile device. They will then receive personalized recommendations in their search results based on their preferences."
So OSX allows user access to all critical files with no option to hide?
I believe so. I am not aware of any other OS but Windows that has this feature.
Of course you can work hard to drain the phones battery but LTE is draining the phones battery without trying. Nothing wrong with that, but Apple focuses on a single model and they have a set of requirements that they wish to achieve (battery life being awesome is one of them!).
If you don't like it, don't buy it, I guess?
Quote: "Google has begun distributing stickers with near field communication (NFC) technology to businesses throughout Austin, Texas as part of its Google Places roll out. The stickers allow users to tap their NFC-equipped phone on the sticker and access content and information relevant to the local business.
The stickers are manufactured by Smartag and measure 80mm x 50mm (3.15 in x 1.97 in) in size. Users who have the Google Places app on their smartphones will be able to see the business' address, phone number, hours of business, types of payment accepted, reviews, and more. The user also has the ability to rate and review the business right from their mobile device. They will then receive personalized recommendations in their search results based on their preferences."
So OSX allows user access to all critical files with no option to hide?
I believe so. I am not aware of any other OS but Windows that has this feature.
javajedi
Oct 13, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by macwannabe
Saying that the 2.8GHz P4 is no good because it is based on 25 year old architecture is nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
Can I take it then that you don't think that any of the cars on the market at the moment are worth having or have been improved at all on the grounds that they are based on an 80 year old design? "I don't think that BMW is any good as it is based on a Ford model T", hmmmmmmmm dodgy logic methinks.
You are absolutely 110% correct. We've allready dismissed BackToTheMac's outlandish fallacies though :)
I think he gets the picture now....
Saying that the 2.8GHz P4 is no good because it is based on 25 year old architecture is nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
Can I take it then that you don't think that any of the cars on the market at the moment are worth having or have been improved at all on the grounds that they are based on an 80 year old design? "I don't think that BMW is any good as it is based on a Ford model T", hmmmmmmmm dodgy logic methinks.
You are absolutely 110% correct. We've allready dismissed BackToTheMac's outlandish fallacies though :)
I think he gets the picture now....
Red-red
Apr 9, 07:57 PM
And it still won't work.
Can't you understand?
You can't look at a screen and hold a controller to play a game well, when there is nothing for your fingers to feel on the thing (sheet of smooth glass) you are holding as a controller.
I understand completely the limitations of the approach but you're the one who doesn't understand or more precisely doesn't seem to accept the possibilities.
Apple isn't going to release a controller or a controller add on. Get that into your head. It isn't happening.
I'm not asking you to understand or like the approach just so we're clear. I couldn't care less but that is what they're doing. No two ways about it.
Brilliant! then a family of five can all play scrabble or monopoly for the low low cost of $1,495*
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.
Can't you understand?
You can't look at a screen and hold a controller to play a game well, when there is nothing for your fingers to feel on the thing (sheet of smooth glass) you are holding as a controller.
I understand completely the limitations of the approach but you're the one who doesn't understand or more precisely doesn't seem to accept the possibilities.
Apple isn't going to release a controller or a controller add on. Get that into your head. It isn't happening.
I'm not asking you to understand or like the approach just so we're clear. I couldn't care less but that is what they're doing. No two ways about it.
Brilliant! then a family of five can all play scrabble or monopoly for the low low cost of $1,495*
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.
DemSpursBro
Apr 9, 01:23 AM
You can't cut and paste, only copy and paste.
A lot of games won't work on mac.
The magic mouse is absolutely horrible, so stay away.
They heat quite quickly.
A lot of games won't work on mac.
The magic mouse is absolutely horrible, so stay away.
They heat quite quickly.
Peterkro
Mar 12, 08:45 PM
^^ It's hard not to veer from apocalypse to there's no problem,but I think a pragmatic view would be that there are serious problems (injecting seawater is a novel and DIY approach) but a meltdown is probably not on the cards,nevertheless they've got major problems,at least some core damage has happened but the reactors are shut down they've just got to get rid of the heat,so far so good.
New TEPCo press release:
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031304-e.html
* High Pressure Coolant Injection System of Unit 3 automatically stopped.
wallpaper black windows 7.
Windows 7 Ultimate Bright
lack-windows-theme
Windows 7 Ultimate Bright
Windows 7 Wallpaper Pack
windows 7 wallpaper black
Windows Vista Black wallpaper
wallpaper vista lack.
Windows 7 Logo HD Wallpapers
Black Windows 7 Ultimate HD
New TEPCo press release:
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031304-e.html
* High Pressure Coolant Injection System of Unit 3 automatically stopped.
munkery
May 2, 08:18 PM
Problems with Windows security in comparison to Mac OS X presented just in this thread:
1) Greater number of privilege escalation vulnerabilities:
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
2) Earlier versions of NT based Windows (Windows XP and earlier) do not use discretionary access controls by default.
3) Permissions system does not include a user defined unique identifier (password) by default. More susceptible to user space exploitation leading to authentication stolen via spoofed prompt that appears unrelated to UAC because password not associated with authentication.
4) Windows sandbox mechanism relies on inherited permissions so that turning off UAC turns off the sandbox. This sandbox has been defeated in the wild (in the last two pwn2owns).
I do not know of any TrustedBSD MAC framework (BSD and Mac sandbox), AppArmor (openSUSE and Ubuntu), or SE Linux (Fedora) mandatory access control escapes? These sandbox mechanisms do not rely on inherited permissions.
5) The Windows registry is a single point of failure that can be leveraged by malware.
EDIT:
If malware doesn't need to use some method to achieve privilege escalation or actively phish users for their credit card number to be profitable enough to warrant their creation, then why did the specific example of malware that started this thread rely on these methods to be profitable?
Why did it not use the methods presented by KnightWRX? Why do you not see malware that only uses user level access to upload a user's data files to achieve some effect that is profitable? I can't recall any malware that uses this method.
Is it because most users do not have valuable info stored in insecure data files? I keep that type of info in encrypted secured notes in Keychain Access or in encrypted sparse bundle disk images.
Is it because it would require too much time to data mine the files for valuable info in relation to the amount of profit gained? How many GBs of data are on your system? Even the data I keep in encrypted sparse bundle disk images wouldn't be very useful for identity theft even if it was not encrypted.
Is it because given all the variables it is more cost effective to go after achieving system level access to keystroke log passwords protected by user space security mechanisms or simply to use basic phishing scams on unknowledgeable users? Makes sense to me but maybe I am wrong.
1) Greater number of privilege escalation vulnerabilities:
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
2) Earlier versions of NT based Windows (Windows XP and earlier) do not use discretionary access controls by default.
3) Permissions system does not include a user defined unique identifier (password) by default. More susceptible to user space exploitation leading to authentication stolen via spoofed prompt that appears unrelated to UAC because password not associated with authentication.
4) Windows sandbox mechanism relies on inherited permissions so that turning off UAC turns off the sandbox. This sandbox has been defeated in the wild (in the last two pwn2owns).
I do not know of any TrustedBSD MAC framework (BSD and Mac sandbox), AppArmor (openSUSE and Ubuntu), or SE Linux (Fedora) mandatory access control escapes? These sandbox mechanisms do not rely on inherited permissions.
5) The Windows registry is a single point of failure that can be leveraged by malware.
EDIT:
If malware doesn't need to use some method to achieve privilege escalation or actively phish users for their credit card number to be profitable enough to warrant their creation, then why did the specific example of malware that started this thread rely on these methods to be profitable?
Why did it not use the methods presented by KnightWRX? Why do you not see malware that only uses user level access to upload a user's data files to achieve some effect that is profitable? I can't recall any malware that uses this method.
Is it because most users do not have valuable info stored in insecure data files? I keep that type of info in encrypted secured notes in Keychain Access or in encrypted sparse bundle disk images.
Is it because it would require too much time to data mine the files for valuable info in relation to the amount of profit gained? How many GBs of data are on your system? Even the data I keep in encrypted sparse bundle disk images wouldn't be very useful for identity theft even if it was not encrypted.
Is it because given all the variables it is more cost effective to go after achieving system level access to keystroke log passwords protected by user space security mechanisms or simply to use basic phishing scams on unknowledgeable users? Makes sense to me but maybe I am wrong.
dethmaShine
May 2, 10:12 AM
To the end user it makes no difference. It's fine if you know, but to a novice quickly correcting them on the difference between a virus, a trojan, or whatever else contributes approximately zero percent towards solving the problem.
I'd say a social engineering attack is worse than a virus, because social engineering attacks succeed far more often than viruses do. Glass is half full.
I have no idea how this is relevant to anything I've brought up. "I agree."
From one of your posts:
The vast majority of users don't differentiate between "virus", "trojan", "phishing e-mail", or any other terminology when they are actually referring to malware as "anything I don't want on my machine.
What I am trying to say that there needs to be awareness and if a person cannot differentiate, then its his/her problem.
I'd say a social engineering attack is worse than a virus, because social engineering attacks succeed far more often than viruses do. Glass is half full.
I have no idea how this is relevant to anything I've brought up. "I agree."
From one of your posts:
The vast majority of users don't differentiate between "virus", "trojan", "phishing e-mail", or any other terminology when they are actually referring to malware as "anything I don't want on my machine.
What I am trying to say that there needs to be awareness and if a person cannot differentiate, then its his/her problem.
pdjudd
Oct 7, 11:24 PM
I'm sorry OSX market share would most definitely go up. From a business perspective though it would would be a terrible move, you are right about that. Profits would drop as Apple would get next to nothing from the sale of software only. The market share of OSX would drop once Apple went bankrupt.
Which is kinda the point. Short term improvements are meaningless if they go right back down. I don;t contend that they would go up, but the whole point of increasing sales is to hope that they stay up. Otherwise it�s just a waste of time. You can;t just say �market share will go up�. Their market share goes up the minute a Mac gets sold. We have to look at the long run which you point out, will invariably go down and possibly lower than the base. A net loss kinda contradicts the idea of increased market share.
But this is all conjecture since Apple has already indicated that they are not playing the market share game.
[QUOTE]Allowing greater access to your product almost always leads to larger sales volumes, but it isn't always in your best interest.
Of course that statement is true. But does that require Apple to license their hardware out to others? I argue that it�s not the case. Taking the MS approach fundamentally changes Apple�s business. They don�t have to do that. Of course the Grueber article covers that too. There are tones of ways to increase access to your product. The tough part is making it profitable. Both Microsoft and Apple accomplish that goal just fine without getting into a fight that results in a bad outcome for Apple or MS.
Which is kinda the point. Short term improvements are meaningless if they go right back down. I don;t contend that they would go up, but the whole point of increasing sales is to hope that they stay up. Otherwise it�s just a waste of time. You can;t just say �market share will go up�. Their market share goes up the minute a Mac gets sold. We have to look at the long run which you point out, will invariably go down and possibly lower than the base. A net loss kinda contradicts the idea of increased market share.
But this is all conjecture since Apple has already indicated that they are not playing the market share game.
[QUOTE]Allowing greater access to your product almost always leads to larger sales volumes, but it isn't always in your best interest.
Of course that statement is true. But does that require Apple to license their hardware out to others? I argue that it�s not the case. Taking the MS approach fundamentally changes Apple�s business. They don�t have to do that. Of course the Grueber article covers that too. There are tones of ways to increase access to your product. The tough part is making it profitable. Both Microsoft and Apple accomplish that goal just fine without getting into a fight that results in a bad outcome for Apple or MS.
Backtothemac
Oct 11, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Inhale420
you gotta be ****ing kidding me. it's so amusing to witness the brainwashed and ignorant roam the earth. yes, i use the latest version of ie and browse these forums 10x faster than whatever mac browser you're using. i only have the default ie on my mac, because there's no point in installing other browsers when you have a pc.
i also have a hell of an easier time developing for the web using the tabbeb-based version of dreamweaver and coldfusion studio. i export 3ds artwork to flash, and the performance of my 2 year old 1ghz athlon is amazing. and when i'm done with work, I USE MY PC AS A GAME MACHINE. the only reason i have a mac, is because i really want to use them for 2d graphics, but apple really ****ing do something brilliant if they expect me to upgrade.
so can you explain what you mean by 'not recognizing' windows? that statement made absolutely NO sense. don't be such a bigot.
And I care why? It doesn't matter how fast you can surf on your PC. I can get around fast enough on my Mac. People who say Mac's are too slow are the same people that never take the time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid.
They are fast enough. They do what they are supposed to do the way they are supposed to do it.
The don't crash, don't get viruses, and don't look like something from the 1980s!
you gotta be ****ing kidding me. it's so amusing to witness the brainwashed and ignorant roam the earth. yes, i use the latest version of ie and browse these forums 10x faster than whatever mac browser you're using. i only have the default ie on my mac, because there's no point in installing other browsers when you have a pc.
i also have a hell of an easier time developing for the web using the tabbeb-based version of dreamweaver and coldfusion studio. i export 3ds artwork to flash, and the performance of my 2 year old 1ghz athlon is amazing. and when i'm done with work, I USE MY PC AS A GAME MACHINE. the only reason i have a mac, is because i really want to use them for 2d graphics, but apple really ****ing do something brilliant if they expect me to upgrade.
so can you explain what you mean by 'not recognizing' windows? that statement made absolutely NO sense. don't be such a bigot.
And I care why? It doesn't matter how fast you can surf on your PC. I can get around fast enough on my Mac. People who say Mac's are too slow are the same people that never take the time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid.
They are fast enough. They do what they are supposed to do the way they are supposed to do it.
The don't crash, don't get viruses, and don't look like something from the 1980s!
jefhatfield
Oct 11, 11:58 PM
that's prolly why sj goes ballistic when any reporter mentions anything to that effect...it may be true or ...maybe... apple and steve jobs may be with motorola 100% percent and hate the "ibm talk" because of how it undermines the high end computing relationship they have now
on the low end, the G3 has had a pretty good run and now with the G3fx and 512k level 2 cache, things are good in that sector for some time to come...hopefully
on the low end, the G3 has had a pretty good run and now with the G3fx and 512k level 2 cache, things are good in that sector for some time to come...hopefully
eXan
Sep 26, 01:55 AM
Thanks. That's not particularly encouraging... I'm not in the habit of 'doing stuff in the background' when I'm working, unless it's disk-burning. :(
And exporting videos to iPod format :D
And exporting videos to iPod format :D
bombjack
Apr 27, 06:19 AM
I switched to Mac 3 years ago and I have never looked back. most of the annoyences has been covered already, but none of them are a real showstopper.
The biggest annoyence with OS X is the lack of a good music handler. I just hate iTunes. It's the biggest bloatware on the market if you ask me. Please, don't start a flame war about this, it's my opinion, and based on how I handle/listen to music. It might work for you.
Regarding the (in)famous "x" to quit programs: This might be the biggest conceptual difference between Windows and Mac. Windows is, well, windows based. Program, user interface etc are all contained in one window. Mac on the other hand is based on programs, interacting with the user using windows. It takes some time to get used to. The best way I believe, is to avoid the buttons and use command-h to hide and command-q to quit programs. This way, alt-tab works as in Windows. Using the "minimize" button is confusing when you want the window back. you can alt-tab to the program but the window will still be minimized
The biggest annoyence with OS X is the lack of a good music handler. I just hate iTunes. It's the biggest bloatware on the market if you ask me. Please, don't start a flame war about this, it's my opinion, and based on how I handle/listen to music. It might work for you.
Regarding the (in)famous "x" to quit programs: This might be the biggest conceptual difference between Windows and Mac. Windows is, well, windows based. Program, user interface etc are all contained in one window. Mac on the other hand is based on programs, interacting with the user using windows. It takes some time to get used to. The best way I believe, is to avoid the buttons and use command-h to hide and command-q to quit programs. This way, alt-tab works as in Windows. Using the "minimize" button is confusing when you want the window back. you can alt-tab to the program but the window will still be minimized
capvideo
Mar 21, 01:37 AM
Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy.
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.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
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.
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.
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.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
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.
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?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
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.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
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.
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.
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.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
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.
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?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
milo
Sep 20, 11:21 AM
This must be a US-centric view. Here (UK) PVRs with twin Freeview (DTT) tuners and 80GB HDs are everywhere. And they are very cheap now (120 quid upwards).
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
Looks like a cool box, but still pretty expensive, $525 USD. And I assume not available in the USA. Anyone know what the cheapest PVR you can buy in the states is?
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
And the fact that you can't use the iTV as a computer! The iPod can play audio and video like a mini can, does that make the iPod "a cut down mini" too?
If I have a mini, couldn't I use it as an iTV with frontrow? Why would I get an iTV when I can get a refirb mini for $200 more, when it can do more?
Because it's $200 more. And this is just the initial pricing, as time goes on the iTV will get cheaper faster than computers do.
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit. The mini's size could allow for a DVD slot/player/burner and maybe even allow for the Mac OS in the box, so you don't need another computer to stream your media from. In fact, I assumed that was what the Mini was ultimately destined for anyway.
Because it would be way more expensive than $200, with little chance of prices dropping much.
Since iTV most likely wont be a DVR device, I coughed up $700 today for a Sony DVR instead.
I am sure Apple has a brilliant plan for the iTV, but I fail to see it.
Well, the first step of the plan is to cost less than $700. :eek: At that price, the technology will never be anything more than a niche.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
He was talking about the future of iTunes/iTV. Who's to say that someday everything on cable won't be on iTunes?
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
Looks like a cool box, but still pretty expensive, $525 USD. And I assume not available in the USA. Anyone know what the cheapest PVR you can buy in the states is?
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
And the fact that you can't use the iTV as a computer! The iPod can play audio and video like a mini can, does that make the iPod "a cut down mini" too?
If I have a mini, couldn't I use it as an iTV with frontrow? Why would I get an iTV when I can get a refirb mini for $200 more, when it can do more?
Because it's $200 more. And this is just the initial pricing, as time goes on the iTV will get cheaper faster than computers do.
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit. The mini's size could allow for a DVD slot/player/burner and maybe even allow for the Mac OS in the box, so you don't need another computer to stream your media from. In fact, I assumed that was what the Mini was ultimately destined for anyway.
Because it would be way more expensive than $200, with little chance of prices dropping much.
Since iTV most likely wont be a DVR device, I coughed up $700 today for a Sony DVR instead.
I am sure Apple has a brilliant plan for the iTV, but I fail to see it.
Well, the first step of the plan is to cost less than $700. :eek: At that price, the technology will never be anything more than a niche.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
He was talking about the future of iTunes/iTV. Who's to say that someday everything on cable won't be on iTunes?
aristobrat
Mar 18, 01:09 PM
Who cares?
I dont give a crap. My speeds are great even with all that.
Oh, OK. You're one of those "hey, everything is great for *me*, so what the hell are YOU complaining about people". Cool.
I work in a decent sized office building where 3G speed isn't consistently great. I also know of at least four people that bring their personal laptops and torrent via MyWi here during the day so that they don't get the DMCA notifications (and risk of getting their service canceled) from their home broadband provider (Cox Cable).
If these people want to pony up and pay for the bandwidth that they're using here, that's fine. But I bet they wont. And I also bet that overall speed for the AT&T 3G coverage where I spend the majority of my waking hours increases if they don't.
I dont give a crap. My speeds are great even with all that.
Oh, OK. You're one of those "hey, everything is great for *me*, so what the hell are YOU complaining about people". Cool.
I work in a decent sized office building where 3G speed isn't consistently great. I also know of at least four people that bring their personal laptops and torrent via MyWi here during the day so that they don't get the DMCA notifications (and risk of getting their service canceled) from their home broadband provider (Cox Cable).
If these people want to pony up and pay for the bandwidth that they're using here, that's fine. But I bet they wont. And I also bet that overall speed for the AT&T 3G coverage where I spend the majority of my waking hours increases if they don't.
stunna
Jul 12, 09:57 AM
Maybe Apple will give you a choice.
requieminadream
Apr 8, 11:02 PM
Was the MacNN headline "Apple Poaching Gaming PR Execs from Activision and Nintendo?" the true story? It would give a very different impression if the headline had been "PR Execs Abandoning Activision and Nintendo for Apple?" And in fact the article says that Grange "jumped ship".
Were they pushed or pulled?
Doesn't matter. Apple took in two head gaming executives. Whether they called them up or were called up, they now have major gaming players in their family. It's a pretty clear sign that they will be getting into gaming in some way.
Were they pushed or pulled?
Doesn't matter. Apple took in two head gaming executives. Whether they called them up or were called up, they now have major gaming players in their family. It's a pretty clear sign that they will be getting into gaming in some way.
toddybody
Apr 15, 10:17 AM
Um, they're everywhere. Statistics show gays have higher incomes. Gays are 3% of the population, yet you can't name a single new show on TV in the past few years that doesn't have at least one gay character.
They're doing fine, and I find it hard to believe kids aren't already seeing examples of that on the internet.
Sorry, but I have to disagree (respectfully) there. You bet; theres plenty of Will and Grace examples of successful Gays. Thats like saying Seth Rogan is a beacon of hope to fat Jewish kids everywhere (coming from one..well, not fat anymore). :D
When you're a gay kid who doesn't fit into the archetypal-media gay role...its hard to find those examples of normalcy. Theres so many gay kids out there that want to be Doctors, Firefighters, Soldiers, CS Engineers...etc. No different from any other kid.
They're doing fine, and I find it hard to believe kids aren't already seeing examples of that on the internet.
Sorry, but I have to disagree (respectfully) there. You bet; theres plenty of Will and Grace examples of successful Gays. Thats like saying Seth Rogan is a beacon of hope to fat Jewish kids everywhere (coming from one..well, not fat anymore). :D
When you're a gay kid who doesn't fit into the archetypal-media gay role...its hard to find those examples of normalcy. Theres so many gay kids out there that want to be Doctors, Firefighters, Soldiers, CS Engineers...etc. No different from any other kid.
Kalmia
Sep 20, 01:06 AM
TV show recording would be REALLY nice, but it's probably wishful thinking, considering it could potentially cut into profits from iTunes. Still, one can dream...
In addition, I would really love a movie rental option, though that's probably even more farfetched. It would save us a TON of money on late fees, though.
My main concern is how big of a hole this is going to leave in my wallet. I guess it's still pretty early to be speculating, given that we don't know much about it. So I should probably try not to get my hopes up in the meantime. :p
~Kalmia
In addition, I would really love a movie rental option, though that's probably even more farfetched. It would save us a TON of money on late fees, though.
My main concern is how big of a hole this is going to leave in my wallet. I guess it's still pretty early to be speculating, given that we don't know much about it. So I should probably try not to get my hopes up in the meantime. :p
~Kalmia
justflie
Mar 18, 07:12 AM
I've never really understood this. If I'm paying for unlimited data, why does it matter how I choose to distribute it? What if i used the same amount of data on my phone as when I tether my iPad? It's flawed, greedy logic on their part. I know it's in the contract not to use it blah blah, but that doesn't mean it makes sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment