ductapesuprhero
Mar 20, 02:12 AM
I've used iTMS before I bought my iPod Shuffle (way cool!) to simply download music and burn to it CDs. Beats the inconvenience of running out to Walmart and buying the CD for even more money. And I get to search and preview. This is the best way to buy music WITH OR WITHOUT a portable music player.
Also, $0.34 is a nice profit per song * 300+ million songs and growing. Not bad business for just pushing bits! :cool:
Off Topic: Any with an iPod Shuffle think the plastic is reminiscent of Lego (R) plastic?
No one has mentioned the bigger picture... Apple sells music to sell iPods for the same reason they make iLife, Safari, and OSX - to sell computers. Sure, Apple has raked in $100milion in profits from iTunes, and as big as that number sounds, it pales in comparison to the rest of their numbers.
Its all about the halo effect.
Plus, what people don't see is that they are not buying music, or a file etc.; they are purchasing the right to play that file/music which carries with it certain terms and conditions. The DRM is there simply to enforce what you've already agreed to. If its so bad, why do you agree to it in the first place? To download the music? That's both illegal and unethical; it is not your music.
[EDIT: Typo]
Also, $0.34 is a nice profit per song * 300+ million songs and growing. Not bad business for just pushing bits! :cool:
Off Topic: Any with an iPod Shuffle think the plastic is reminiscent of Lego (R) plastic?
No one has mentioned the bigger picture... Apple sells music to sell iPods for the same reason they make iLife, Safari, and OSX - to sell computers. Sure, Apple has raked in $100milion in profits from iTunes, and as big as that number sounds, it pales in comparison to the rest of their numbers.
Its all about the halo effect.
Plus, what people don't see is that they are not buying music, or a file etc.; they are purchasing the right to play that file/music which carries with it certain terms and conditions. The DRM is there simply to enforce what you've already agreed to. If its so bad, why do you agree to it in the first place? To download the music? That's both illegal and unethical; it is not your music.
[EDIT: Typo]
kayle12
May 5, 10:37 AM
I have Verizon and I think I've had two dropped calls in years.
AT&T really needs to get more towers up, that's the only solution in my mind.
Kayle
AT&T really needs to get more towers up, that's the only solution in my mind.
Kayle
bartzilla
Apr 20, 08:17 AM
One thing I would say, as someone who didn't "switch" but who uses both quite comfortably, is that you need to appreciate how the system works and try and work with it rather than against it, so rather than saying "This is how I used to do things in Windows, now what can I do on a Mac that's similar to the way I used to do it in Windows" you need to think about what you're trying to achieve and find out what neat ways the mac has of getting that done.
This goes both ways, trying to use Windows as if it was Mac OSX isn't much fun, either.
This goes both ways, trying to use Windows as if it was Mac OSX isn't much fun, either.
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
dethmaShine
May 2, 09:13 AM
Actually there's been malware for OS X since it was introduced. There is malware for every operating system.
Nothing can defend against user stupidity.
Well, that's true.
Thanks for correcting me.
Nothing can defend against user stupidity.
Well, that's true.
Thanks for correcting me.
sinisterdesign
Jul 11, 11:06 PM
from my source, i can confirm that they will indeed have 2 dual cores.
i've also been told that the case has only minor changes, which kind of sucks. i'm hoping it's still smaller than the big chunk of aluminum under my desk.
i've also been told that the case has only minor changes, which kind of sucks. i'm hoping it's still smaller than the big chunk of aluminum under my desk.
archipellago
May 2, 04:11 PM
The market share myth is exactly that: a myth. It doesn't hold water.
Its not a myth, we've interviewed hackers after conviction, they have no interest in pursuing Macs due to the numbers. To get a really good and useful bot net you'd need roughly 25% of the entire user base!!!!
these guys deal in tens of millions!
Its not a myth, we've interviewed hackers after conviction, they have no interest in pursuing Macs due to the numbers. To get a really good and useful bot net you'd need roughly 25% of the entire user base!!!!
these guys deal in tens of millions!
OllyW
Apr 21, 03:06 AM
Its amazing how all those "smart" Android users are still poorer than the average iOS user, and spend less than the average iOS user.
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
At least they don't have to worry about other people thinking they are smug arrogant tosspots. :rolleyes:
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
At least they don't have to worry about other people thinking they are smug arrogant tosspots. :rolleyes:
AidenShaw
Jul 13, 07:07 AM
it depends whether you are looking at it from software-perspective or hardware-perspective.
Actually, it looks the same from both perspectives.
Yonah, Conroe and Merom have full hardware SMP support on the package (or on the chip itself).
The cache coherency and inter-processor (in this case meaning inter-core) communications features are present, and must be present in order to avoid corrupting memory data and to support an SMP operating system.
The difference with Woodcrest is that Yonah/Conroe/Merom do not support SMP features *between* sockets - the cache coherency and IPC mechanisms are not brought out to the pins on the package.
Woodcrest brings those signals out to the pins, and the Woodcrest's 5000x chipset connects those signals between sockets.
Actually, it looks the same from both perspectives.
Yonah, Conroe and Merom have full hardware SMP support on the package (or on the chip itself).
The cache coherency and inter-processor (in this case meaning inter-core) communications features are present, and must be present in order to avoid corrupting memory data and to support an SMP operating system.
The difference with Woodcrest is that Yonah/Conroe/Merom do not support SMP features *between* sockets - the cache coherency and IPC mechanisms are not brought out to the pins on the package.
Woodcrest brings those signals out to the pins, and the Woodcrest's 5000x chipset connects those signals between sockets.
e-coli
Apr 20, 06:54 PM
No LTE = no iPhone 5 for me. Thanks for saving me some money!
shyataroo
Oct 12, 02:51 PM
I say screw the 8 core intel...lets get a dual-8 core G5 @ 4.2Ghz! with a seperate processor that dictates what operations goto what core to prevent the need for inter-processor communication! oh and make it a 128 bit processor with a built in Nvidia 7950 GX2 OC have it cooled by liquid nitrogen and have 1TB of DDR4 Quad-Channel Ram!
Multimedia
Oct 28, 01:30 PM
There is one error in your calculation: The 2.33 GHz Clovertown and 3.00 GHz Woodcrest cost the same, so you would expect the same price for both systems (price of 2.66GHz Woodcrest + $800, like today). However, the price difference between 2.66GHz Clovertown and 2.33GHz Clovertown is $1172 - $851 = $321 _per chip_ which makes it $642 _per eight core system_.Quite. So + $1400 you think makes it $3899. No problem. Still a bargain - at least for me it is. My cars are all paid for. ;)
puma1552
Mar 12, 06:16 AM
Ugh, just as soon as I had posted...
Beg to differ. You've been praising Japanese nuclear power plant construction as being superior to the impoverished Soviet ones that go into meltdown. Well, we've all now seen your argument for the 'testament to building codes' by 'experts on Japanese nuclear regulations' totally explode and is now lying in rubble. Unless of course you now insist that the building exploding and cllapsing on the core is part of the building codes? ;):
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
Beg to differ. You've been praising Japanese nuclear power plant construction as being superior to the impoverished Soviet ones that go into meltdown. Well, we've all now seen your argument for the 'testament to building codes' by 'experts on Japanese nuclear regulations' totally explode and is now lying in rubble. Unless of course you now insist that the building exploding and cllapsing on the core is part of the building codes? ;):
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 08:28 PM
I would argue not choosing to believe in a divine being is more rational than hedging your bets.
Why?
Look up Pascal's wager
Why?
Look up Pascal's wager
Moyank24
Mar 25, 11:07 AM
As marriage is licensed by the state, it is in fact a privilege. The fact that it is near-universally granted doesn't make it any more a right.
I agree with you here. And that is the problem. It shouldn't be a privilege. Every consenting adult that wants to get married should be allowed to.
I agree with you here. And that is the problem. It shouldn't be a privilege. Every consenting adult that wants to get married should be allowed to.
Xtremehkr
Mar 18, 09:35 PM
iTMS exists to sell iPods yes. But, if iTMS does not do something to protect the profits of those who allow iTMS to sell their songs then they will stop supplying iTMS with songs to sell.
There was a way to get around this before, but it was only used by a minority of people and considered an acceptable loss I guess.
What you have here is someone who is internationally advertising a way to beat copyright protections through iTMS, which hurts Apple as it may affect suppliers of music to iTMS.
There were ways to beat iTMS before and the best way was to avoid it altogether and use a P2P software.
This to me is different however. It is a direct attack on Apple aimed at disuading music labels from providing iTMS with songs to download.
In this instance I stand with Apple, as the MP3 market heats up, one of the determining factors in who people choose to buy their music from is going to be exclusive content. Labels are not going to release material to distributors who cannot assure that their material won't be easily pirated.
*If they fix this hole and leave everything else in place there really is no problem*
The songs iTMS sells are not their own! iTMS is a middleman that is not guaranteed access to the product that it resells. An essential part of selling iPods is being able to offer current music to play on them. iTMS needs to protect its ability to resell the music needed to use on iPods.
There was a way to get around this before, but it was only used by a minority of people and considered an acceptable loss I guess.
What you have here is someone who is internationally advertising a way to beat copyright protections through iTMS, which hurts Apple as it may affect suppliers of music to iTMS.
There were ways to beat iTMS before and the best way was to avoid it altogether and use a P2P software.
This to me is different however. It is a direct attack on Apple aimed at disuading music labels from providing iTMS with songs to download.
In this instance I stand with Apple, as the MP3 market heats up, one of the determining factors in who people choose to buy their music from is going to be exclusive content. Labels are not going to release material to distributors who cannot assure that their material won't be easily pirated.
*If they fix this hole and leave everything else in place there really is no problem*
The songs iTMS sells are not their own! iTMS is a middleman that is not guaranteed access to the product that it resells. An essential part of selling iPods is being able to offer current music to play on them. iTMS needs to protect its ability to resell the music needed to use on iPods.
bfar5
Aug 17, 07:30 AM
Ridiculous number of dropped calls. What a terrible excuse for customer service this was. Whenever I have called them about any other issues, they have been really helpful. When this guy found out I had Iphone4, he acted like he couldn't get me off the phone fast enough. Told me "the phone has problems, get the bumper, have I resolved your issues?"
My device is quirky. The proximity sensor has a mind of its own, it gets hung up on tasks daily, the reception is terrible. For ME, Iphone4 SUCKS and when people ask me if I recommend it, I'm with CR. Miss my 3gs which my husband is enjoying. Crap.
My device is quirky. The proximity sensor has a mind of its own, it gets hung up on tasks daily, the reception is terrible. For ME, Iphone4 SUCKS and when people ask me if I recommend it, I'm with CR. Miss my 3gs which my husband is enjoying. Crap.
aricher
Aug 29, 10:57 AM
It's a very sad reality indeed.
KnightWRX
May 2, 11:14 AM
The fight can't be won, it's useless... there will always be those people who go, "Oh my god... random email, you need my credit card, social security number, and my youngest child? Sure thing! Here you go!"
And then freak out because their bank accounts are all empty and their kid's running off with some 40 year old. It'll never end.
That's never been a reason to give up. I was raised on Shonen Anime. I don't know the meaning of the words "giving up". ;)
And then freak out because their bank accounts are all empty and their kid's running off with some 40 year old. It'll never end.
That's never been a reason to give up. I was raised on Shonen Anime. I don't know the meaning of the words "giving up". ;)
paul4339
Apr 21, 12:17 AM
It skews the number non the less. iOS is on four different devices the iTv, iPod touch, iphone, and the ipod touch jumbo. And google doesn't make any hardware. They work with companies to have them made like the nexus series.
The comScore data tracks the number of users ... so if you use four idevices, it's still counted as one user... at least that's what the article mentions.
The comScore data tracks the number of users ... so if you use four idevices, it's still counted as one user... at least that's what the article mentions.
iJohnHenry
Apr 23, 11:41 AM
Yep. Now I can't get the idea of orbiting teapots out of my mind.
Or His noodley tendrils?
Some of you have seen this item, hopefully. ;)
The twisted spaghetti (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-04/21/hubble-birthday) of cosmic arms....
Or His noodley tendrils?
Some of you have seen this item, hopefully. ;)
The twisted spaghetti (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-04/21/hubble-birthday) of cosmic arms....
ksz
Oct 12, 04:52 PM
Here ya go: http://forums.us.dell.com/supportforums/board/message?board.id=creativecontest&message.id=143&l=en&s=dhs
This is a really good deal. Ordered mine a few minutes ago for $1350+tax. Will use it with my home-built PC (nVidia 7800 GTX with dual-link DVI) until the next-gen Mac Pro is released.
This is a really good deal. Ordered mine a few minutes ago for $1350+tax. Will use it with my home-built PC (nVidia 7800 GTX with dual-link DVI) until the next-gen Mac Pro is released.
MrWinters
Apr 28, 03:38 PM
But the internet brought p0rn mainstream. :D
I ran a dialup BBS from 1983-1992 and we had p0rn, FidoNet Email, discussion forums, software downloads, etc....
The Internet made stuff faster, more graphical, and brought stuff to a wider audience - but for us early birds, everything has always kinda been there.
I ran a dialup BBS from 1983-1992 and we had p0rn, FidoNet Email, discussion forums, software downloads, etc....
The Internet made stuff faster, more graphical, and brought stuff to a wider audience - but for us early birds, everything has always kinda been there.
dudemac
Mar 20, 10:23 AM
from what i see on it's website tis a *nix programme... ie not windows.. ;)
it runs on windows too you just to have the GTK installed also. Its on the website. see my post to page 3 first post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=115997&page=3&pp=25)
But as of yesterday morning I could no longer purchase songs this way, I can log in and browse, but it will not finalize the sale.
it runs on windows too you just to have the GTK installed also. Its on the website. see my post to page 3 first post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=115997&page=3&pp=25)
But as of yesterday morning I could no longer purchase songs this way, I can log in and browse, but it will not finalize the sale.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar