sinsin07
Apr 9, 08:46 AM
These people that are trying to claim they're a hardcore gamer, aren't. A true gamer plays games, regardless of where they are played or how they are played. A gamer plays games. There's nothing more too it than that.
Harry Potter and the Deathly
Harry Potter and the Deathly
trailer for Harry Potter
What a great day for Potter
In Part 2 of the epic finale,
Movie Name: Harry Potter and
Harry Potter and the Deathly
Harry Potter and the Deathly
Harry Potter and the Deathly
Harry, Ron and Hermione will
quot;Harry Potter and the Deathly
Harry Potter and the Deathly
go : http://harrypotter.
Harry Potter And The Deathly
Movie Trailer: Harry Potter
Harry Potter and the Deathly
Harry Potter and the Deathly
as the Harry Potter saga
Post Title → harry potter 7 part 2 pictures
rdstoll
May 5, 12:49 PM
AT&T should be embarrassed. Seriously, I had Sprint PCS in the late 90's that had much better call performance than AT&T does today. Having been with Verizon prior to switching to AT&T to get the iPhone I used to think the device was the problem but it's clear it's AT&T.
Worst part is that I got an email from AT&T just last week saying they just "completed a major upgrade" in Chicago. I'm still getting dropped calls left and right and 3G isn't that great either. And this is AFTER the upgrade??
Worst part is that I got an email from AT&T just last week saying they just "completed a major upgrade" in Chicago. I'm still getting dropped calls left and right and 3G isn't that great either. And this is AFTER the upgrade??
Gelfin
Mar 26, 07:30 PM
I'm inarticulate. Well, if it is extending benefits heterosexual marriages then examine why it is doing so and then see what the differences between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage would be.
The reason you are telling me to do that is because you cannot. Neither can the government. That's why it is wrong.
Nearly forty years ago psychologists declared homosexuality was not a mental illness. Nearly ten years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the government has no authority to criminalize consensual sexual acts between any two people, regardless of gender, in the privacy of their own homes. The state of the art in science and law once provided justification for the discrimination you want. Neither does any longer. It is no longer understood to be the case that homosexuality entails a necessary harm to the participants or anyone else. Quite the contrary, same-sex couples are known to form loving, supportive, monogamous relationships every bit as profound as those enjoyed between men and women.
This being so, the government has an obligation to prove that this distinction has not outlived its legal relevance. Hint: it has.
The reason you are telling me to do that is because you cannot. Neither can the government. That's why it is wrong.
Nearly forty years ago psychologists declared homosexuality was not a mental illness. Nearly ten years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the government has no authority to criminalize consensual sexual acts between any two people, regardless of gender, in the privacy of their own homes. The state of the art in science and law once provided justification for the discrimination you want. Neither does any longer. It is no longer understood to be the case that homosexuality entails a necessary harm to the participants or anyone else. Quite the contrary, same-sex couples are known to form loving, supportive, monogamous relationships every bit as profound as those enjoyed between men and women.
This being so, the government has an obligation to prove that this distinction has not outlived its legal relevance. Hint: it has.
FX120
Mar 13, 02:09 PM
It's hard to be a fan of anything on this planet that is capable of destroying the planet.
What?
What?
sawah
Mar 18, 01:14 PM
What the hell is your problem? AT&T has broken the law. Are you content with that?
Do you think it's appropriate for any company to sell an unlimited service, and make every attempt possible to limit it?
And how do YOU not get the giant paragraph in their TOS that says you can't tether it to another device?? Use all the unlimited data you want on your phone. A judge isn't gonna waive that all away.
Not to mention, At&t is warning you that you are gonna get charged for it, which also covers their butts. They aren't charging you for it without telling you in advance first.
We've all know for years that our cell phone companies charge way too much for things. We still choose to pay them.
Do you think it's appropriate for any company to sell an unlimited service, and make every attempt possible to limit it?
And how do YOU not get the giant paragraph in their TOS that says you can't tether it to another device?? Use all the unlimited data you want on your phone. A judge isn't gonna waive that all away.
Not to mention, At&t is warning you that you are gonna get charged for it, which also covers their butts. They aren't charging you for it without telling you in advance first.
We've all know for years that our cell phone companies charge way too much for things. We still choose to pay them.
solidus12
Dec 30, 07:18 AM
I think the realistic expectation is: "If Apple doesn't make any more changes to the iPhone for the next 10 years, there will be an Android phone to beat it by 2020!!"
I feel like the trend is going to stay the same as it was with the G1. They're like "ooo look at our neat new features!!" Unfortunately, the iPhone/iPod just got those features, only better, just before you launched.
The competition just can't stay ahead, and Apple is going to keep it that way.
Yeah I mean what with the iphones Bluetooth transfers, tethering, awesome camara, Flash support, excellent reception, fantastic battery life etc..
Yeah way ahead.
No.
The iphone is successful because of the user-experience; Its one a child can pick up and use, it is slick and fluent experience and its packaged in something attractive.
People see it and are drawn to it because of this, the other phones require time and effort to navigate between menus and options to figure out how to use it - The iphone is simple. Pick up and play.
It has pushed the boundaries on user-experience and how a phone should try and work Yes and that has been a very attractive feature because it does everything all other phones can do but presents it far better.
I feel like the trend is going to stay the same as it was with the G1. They're like "ooo look at our neat new features!!" Unfortunately, the iPhone/iPod just got those features, only better, just before you launched.
The competition just can't stay ahead, and Apple is going to keep it that way.
Yeah I mean what with the iphones Bluetooth transfers, tethering, awesome camara, Flash support, excellent reception, fantastic battery life etc..
Yeah way ahead.
No.
The iphone is successful because of the user-experience; Its one a child can pick up and use, it is slick and fluent experience and its packaged in something attractive.
People see it and are drawn to it because of this, the other phones require time and effort to navigate between menus and options to figure out how to use it - The iphone is simple. Pick up and play.
It has pushed the boundaries on user-experience and how a phone should try and work Yes and that has been a very attractive feature because it does everything all other phones can do but presents it far better.
iliketyla
Apr 20, 07:11 PM
The experience is degraded because Android lacks the Apple-integrated experience that we care about. Saying Android can do anything iPhone can do is like saying that both an Hyundai Accent and a Ferrari will get you from A to B. Yes, both can do this, but it's the experience that matters. The point isn't the fact that both have apps and both can browse the internet. Most people don't care about overclocking their phones or installing custom ROMs or "software freedom," whatever that means.
I'm a former two-year Android user. The transition to iPhone 4 was great.
Good for you.
I'm a former iPhone user.
The cost difference in an Android was great, and I don't regret it one bit because the experience is far superior FOR ME.
Live and let live, your iPhone is not a Ferrari.
I'm a former two-year Android user. The transition to iPhone 4 was great.
Good for you.
I'm a former iPhone user.
The cost difference in an Android was great, and I don't regret it one bit because the experience is far superior FOR ME.
Live and let live, your iPhone is not a Ferrari.
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
Yamcha
May 2, 10:30 AM
Sure it is Malware, but that doesn't mean it's not a threat to Mac users, a decent amount of Mac users are not very knowledgable when it comes to computers, I can see a lot of people going ahead with this install, why? well it says MacDefender, people could confuse it for an anti-virus software, so yeah I mean its entirely possible that someone could install this..
Anyway, it's to be expected, infact when Mac OS does become more popular I think we will clearly find viruses, malware and spyware, that day OSX will become a lot like Windows.. Even anti-viruses today for Windows are not able to get rid of every virus, you have to constantly do updates, even then theres always new viruses, and your not always going to be protected..
But I don't think that'll happen anytime soon..
Anyway, it's to be expected, infact when Mac OS does become more popular I think we will clearly find viruses, malware and spyware, that day OSX will become a lot like Windows.. Even anti-viruses today for Windows are not able to get rid of every virus, you have to constantly do updates, even then theres always new viruses, and your not always going to be protected..
But I don't think that'll happen anytime soon..
r0k
Apr 5, 10:14 PM
Can't just hit Delete? Can't move up a level in the directory structure? Yikes.
Ya know what? These may all be little things individually, but collectively as a whole I think they'd drive me nuts.
I'm still on Vista... maybe going to Windows 7 might be the smarter move in my particular case.
Thanks for your help everyone, I sincerely appreciate your input.
Gotta do some serious thinking about this...
The delete thing bothers me a bit. What do you mean you can't move up? You mean with backspace? There is a preference in finder to show entire path so I never have trouble navigating up folder structure. If you are used to Vista and leaning toward 7, perhaps OS X isn't for you.
It's really not about how I delete things, nor is it about the pretty colors. It's about how much of my time I have to spend futzing with stuff like broken drivers, missing printers, yada yada yada.
I will admit I wasted a few hours this week chasing a Time Machine issue but that's about all the futzing I've had to do since about November. I'm willing to deal with the limitations and quirks of OS X because OS X doesn't waste my time. And it wasn't something I had to do in order to send my taxes or print out show tickets. I did it when I felt like I had the time, unlike so many windows problems that crop up on the way to an important meeting. I haven't seen an "are you sure" on my Mac since I got it. To me sometimes it seems like Windows was written to harvest clicks while OS X was written to avoid unnecessary user intervention.
Sure there are some quirks. Like the way copied folders are replaced, not merged with destination folders. Like the missing "cut" and "delete" features. But for me these quirks are no big deal and I look forward to sitting down in front of my Mac after suffering with 7 all day at work. But what we say in this thread isn't necessarily relevant to your situation. Based on what we have described, you can get a sense as to how "different" OS X is. To me, it's really not that much different. What is more important is how different it is to you and whether it bothers you.
Ya know what? These may all be little things individually, but collectively as a whole I think they'd drive me nuts.
I'm still on Vista... maybe going to Windows 7 might be the smarter move in my particular case.
Thanks for your help everyone, I sincerely appreciate your input.
Gotta do some serious thinking about this...
The delete thing bothers me a bit. What do you mean you can't move up? You mean with backspace? There is a preference in finder to show entire path so I never have trouble navigating up folder structure. If you are used to Vista and leaning toward 7, perhaps OS X isn't for you.
It's really not about how I delete things, nor is it about the pretty colors. It's about how much of my time I have to spend futzing with stuff like broken drivers, missing printers, yada yada yada.
I will admit I wasted a few hours this week chasing a Time Machine issue but that's about all the futzing I've had to do since about November. I'm willing to deal with the limitations and quirks of OS X because OS X doesn't waste my time. And it wasn't something I had to do in order to send my taxes or print out show tickets. I did it when I felt like I had the time, unlike so many windows problems that crop up on the way to an important meeting. I haven't seen an "are you sure" on my Mac since I got it. To me sometimes it seems like Windows was written to harvest clicks while OS X was written to avoid unnecessary user intervention.
Sure there are some quirks. Like the way copied folders are replaced, not merged with destination folders. Like the missing "cut" and "delete" features. But for me these quirks are no big deal and I look forward to sitting down in front of my Mac after suffering with 7 all day at work. But what we say in this thread isn't necessarily relevant to your situation. Based on what we have described, you can get a sense as to how "different" OS X is. To me, it's really not that much different. What is more important is how different it is to you and whether it bothers you.
BenRoethig
Oct 26, 09:04 AM
I wonder if the current MacPro will finally be the first Mac where we could swap out the actual processor for the new quad. Didn't Barefeats or somebody do a test on that already?
The intel machines use intel standard parts. No proprietary CPU riser cards or what have you. If you can get to the CPU, that is.
The intel machines use intel standard parts. No proprietary CPU riser cards or what have you. If you can get to the CPU, that is.
DaftRyan
Apr 9, 12:28 AM
I would love to have a conversation with the headhunters who managed to pull this one off. Talk about talent.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 23, 03:08 PM
You don't understand and you don't seem to want to understand so I'll leave you to it.
You don't understand because you can't see the big picture.
You don't understand because you can't see the big picture.
superfula
Apr 11, 04:02 PM
seriously, stop spreading crap like this. You make it plainly obvious that you have never actually used a mac. Or, that you're a 20-something kid who values your precious soul-sucking video games above all else.
Aside from the part about installing Mac OS on the pc, which isn't THAT far off if you have the right hardware, nothing else that he said is really that inaccurate.
I'm sorry if YOU can't see any value in a mac - you aren't looking very hard. Try loading OSX on your pc. Go ahead. I'll wait. Oh, make sure it is full functionality too. I want gestures, I want full printing and network support, everything. You say you have it? Prove it. Give me screen shots, video with audio, etc.
Did you not read the thread title? The op was specifically asking for people's opinions and what they don't like. And that's exactly what he stated.
I'm sorry, but I loathe posts like yours. If you are so anti-mac, then good for you. Enjoy your world, but stay the hell out of ours.
Good grief, he didn't attack your mom. Your statement here, and really the entire post is uncalled for. He is well within the subject of the thread. If you don't believe so, report him and move on. If you don't like his reasoning, perhaps you are far to pro-Mac to be able to know the difference. Chill.
Aside from the part about installing Mac OS on the pc, which isn't THAT far off if you have the right hardware, nothing else that he said is really that inaccurate.
I'm sorry if YOU can't see any value in a mac - you aren't looking very hard. Try loading OSX on your pc. Go ahead. I'll wait. Oh, make sure it is full functionality too. I want gestures, I want full printing and network support, everything. You say you have it? Prove it. Give me screen shots, video with audio, etc.
Did you not read the thread title? The op was specifically asking for people's opinions and what they don't like. And that's exactly what he stated.
I'm sorry, but I loathe posts like yours. If you are so anti-mac, then good for you. Enjoy your world, but stay the hell out of ours.
Good grief, he didn't attack your mom. Your statement here, and really the entire post is uncalled for. He is well within the subject of the thread. If you don't believe so, report him and move on. If you don't like his reasoning, perhaps you are far to pro-Mac to be able to know the difference. Chill.
ezekielrage_99
Aug 30, 07:29 AM
Thank God Apple users just amount 3% -or something like that- in the computer industry (forget about the ipod)...
If everybody thought like most people in this board, the world would be a more scarier (if possible) place to live in...
I wonder if Dell rated highly because of that battery thing :confused:
If everybody thought like most people in this board, the world would be a more scarier (if possible) place to live in...
I wonder if Dell rated highly because of that battery thing :confused:
myamid
Sep 12, 07:05 PM
Yes, except the point is the iTunes/Movie interface with EyeHome does not have. What is cool is you can now use BOTH!!!
And the HD capabilities of iTV exceed Eyehome.
Considering the quality of the content on iTunes... I'd say what I stream is about on par so I'm not loosing out too much...
And your first comment only applied to DRM protected content... for anything else, EyeHome is totally integrated with iTunes, iPhoto and movies...
And the HD capabilities of iTV exceed Eyehome.
Considering the quality of the content on iTunes... I'd say what I stream is about on par so I'm not loosing out too much...
And your first comment only applied to DRM protected content... for anything else, EyeHome is totally integrated with iTunes, iPhoto and movies...
ddtlm
Oct 7, 03:53 PM
Backtothemac:
Jesus you still don't get it. If you compare Apples to Apples, the 1.6GHZ Dual Athlon is still slower in apps that are multi processor aware. Now, how about the PIV? How does that stack up? The x86 is garbage. Any real IT director would know that.
No, I "get it" fine. Don't bother testing a 1.6ghz dual Athlon when 1.8ghz dual Athlons are readily available. It would do you good to note that this test did not cover all "apps that are multi processor aware", it covered only two apps that are multi-processor aware, and on one of them the Mac looses by a lot. Even on its one win, the dual 1.25 G4 would still loose to a top-of-the-line dual Athlon. Which is slower than a top-of-the-line dual Xeon. Get it?
Jesus you still don't get it. If you compare Apples to Apples, the 1.6GHZ Dual Athlon is still slower in apps that are multi processor aware. Now, how about the PIV? How does that stack up? The x86 is garbage. Any real IT director would know that.
No, I "get it" fine. Don't bother testing a 1.6ghz dual Athlon when 1.8ghz dual Athlons are readily available. It would do you good to note that this test did not cover all "apps that are multi processor aware", it covered only two apps that are multi-processor aware, and on one of them the Mac looses by a lot. Even on its one win, the dual 1.25 G4 would still loose to a top-of-the-line dual Athlon. Which is slower than a top-of-the-line dual Xeon. Get it?
jchung
Mar 18, 11:22 AM
I can't blame AT&T one bit for trying to protect their network. And as some have already said, those who are trying to game the system are hurting those of us who are being honest by bloating the network unnecessarily.
I can blame AT&T for this because they don't account for data usage properly.
See this thread on Apple's forums - http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2450738
If AT&T could account for data usage properly and show their customers what was using the data, then I would say ALMOST say its ok for AT&T to do this (other than the fact they just automatically sign you up instead of having you opt in).
I can blame AT&T for this because they don't account for data usage properly.
See this thread on Apple's forums - http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2450738
If AT&T could account for data usage properly and show their customers what was using the data, then I would say ALMOST say its ok for AT&T to do this (other than the fact they just automatically sign you up instead of having you opt in).
darkplanets
Mar 11, 09:23 AM
NB. I guess the most critical things that can get damaged in Japan are the nuke power stations, the reports so far say none are leaking.
I wouldn't worry about those. They're incredibly well designed. If Japan has any of the new AP1000's, then there's really nothing to worry about.
I wouldn't worry about those. They're incredibly well designed. If Japan has any of the new AP1000's, then there's really nothing to worry about.
rasmasyean
Mar 15, 09:49 AM
you think it would be 'pretty cool' to relocate 130 million people to some 'barren area' in a foreign land when there is absolutely no reasons for it?
and you think it would be "practical"????
Obviously, it wouln't be "all at once" and these types of things never happen in one single "foreign land". But history is wrought with many resettling of peoples, the Jews is just one example. This actually happens a lot for "unnatural" disasters like war and stuff.
If this situation blows up more and more, heck, humans haven't even dealt with such a potential disaster outcome before. It's actually purely "unnatural" at it's roots. There isn't any natural deposit of refined radioactive uranium/plutonium/whatever that we've encountered on earth before. This is purely man-made and is not supposed to exist. I mean, what is there to do in such a case? I know GM, Microsoft, Motorola et al may have a field day if the Japanese just disapeared, but hey, there's added value elsewhere that many nations would value in having their human and physical assets close.
and you think it would be "practical"????
Obviously, it wouln't be "all at once" and these types of things never happen in one single "foreign land". But history is wrought with many resettling of peoples, the Jews is just one example. This actually happens a lot for "unnatural" disasters like war and stuff.
If this situation blows up more and more, heck, humans haven't even dealt with such a potential disaster outcome before. It's actually purely "unnatural" at it's roots. There isn't any natural deposit of refined radioactive uranium/plutonium/whatever that we've encountered on earth before. This is purely man-made and is not supposed to exist. I mean, what is there to do in such a case? I know GM, Microsoft, Motorola et al may have a field day if the Japanese just disapeared, but hey, there's added value elsewhere that many nations would value in having their human and physical assets close.
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Hodapp
Sep 26, 04:22 PM
8-Core Mac Pro? Can't wait to upgrade. :cool:
Pipian
Mar 18, 10:09 AM
I wonder how long it'll be until Apple comes up with a fix for this?
UnixMac
Oct 9, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
Alex ant has made some good points on why Macs are a poor buy. They are so much slower and less stable then PC's these days according to everything I read. I still love my Mac, but since reading these message boards over the past year or so I have became more and more negative about Macs. Mac has lost the MHz war and are becoming slower and slower computers and has also lost out to XP for the best operating system, acording to so many people.
I am a consumer user, email, internet, MP3's, MS Word, digital camera photos, etc. I do like the iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie programs for what I do, but it sounds like with XP there is no longer any problems doing these things and they come loaded with programs that are just as easy to use. The sad thing as Apple was working on their switching campaign to switch people to Macs I am now considering switching to my first PC, because they have so much more megahertz and XP sounds so easy to use and stable.
Well I am broke right now so it will be next spring or summer until I buy a new computer, but as Mac has been going backwards on speed and their software is good, but not any better then Microsoft anymore I really should test out a new PC and see how it works for how I use a computer.
Or I have a better Idea: Call / Write Apple and complain about what you get for your hard earned $$$.......if enough people do, they will listen.
I for one am not ready to move on to PC....as I would have to learn Linux and find Linux versions of all my software....Windows XP never!
Alex ant has made some good points on why Macs are a poor buy. They are so much slower and less stable then PC's these days according to everything I read. I still love my Mac, but since reading these message boards over the past year or so I have became more and more negative about Macs. Mac has lost the MHz war and are becoming slower and slower computers and has also lost out to XP for the best operating system, acording to so many people.
I am a consumer user, email, internet, MP3's, MS Word, digital camera photos, etc. I do like the iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie programs for what I do, but it sounds like with XP there is no longer any problems doing these things and they come loaded with programs that are just as easy to use. The sad thing as Apple was working on their switching campaign to switch people to Macs I am now considering switching to my first PC, because they have so much more megahertz and XP sounds so easy to use and stable.
Well I am broke right now so it will be next spring or summer until I buy a new computer, but as Mac has been going backwards on speed and their software is good, but not any better then Microsoft anymore I really should test out a new PC and see how it works for how I use a computer.
Or I have a better Idea: Call / Write Apple and complain about what you get for your hard earned $$$.......if enough people do, they will listen.
I for one am not ready to move on to PC....as I would have to learn Linux and find Linux versions of all my software....Windows XP never!
Post Title → harry potter 7 part 2 pictures
