GGJstudios
May 2, 04:44 PM
trying to stick to facts...
OSX marketshare was just shy of 50 mill
That's Mac OS X installed base, not the installed base of Macs, as I said. Mac OS X is not the only Mac OS out there. Reading comprehension is fun!
lol, sorry........I can't get into this but you are SO wrong its not true.
Which means, of course, that you can't back up your claims with facts.
there are governments around the world employing people to do this kind of thing.
So? That has nothing to do with your baseless claims about hackers.
OSX marketshare was just shy of 50 mill
That's Mac OS X installed base, not the installed base of Macs, as I said. Mac OS X is not the only Mac OS out there. Reading comprehension is fun!
lol, sorry........I can't get into this but you are SO wrong its not true.
Which means, of course, that you can't back up your claims with facts.
there are governments around the world employing people to do this kind of thing.
So? That has nothing to do with your baseless claims about hackers.
d0minick
Mar 18, 06:04 AM
Until then I'm stuck because I believe in playing by the rules, no matter how F-d up they are...
How could you be the real IT guy if you believe that? Never meant an IT guy that had to "tweak" a few things to get a system to work, the best toys do what the manufacturer never intended!
How could you be the real IT guy if you believe that? Never meant an IT guy that had to "tweak" a few things to get a system to work, the best toys do what the manufacturer never intended!
ITR 81
Sep 12, 06:13 PM
Now see its a step in the right direction to be sure. There will be features announced which will make it more attractive
But unless they add the ability to attach a hard drive or something to hold content on then this isn't going to sell at all.
You probably forget that iTunes TV shows are not available nowhere else in the world except the US. Neither are the films for the time being. so what do we have to watch in the rest of the world? Nada!
I really want this to be better for launch. Lets see what happens eh?
Next yr is suppose to be all International titles and movies.
And I'm sure the UK will be one of the first to get them.
Well if you look at the image of the iTv it looks all concept looking.
So I would say it probably does have a HD or a CF drive. Other wise I can't see them running Front Row on the damn thing without it.
My idea is Apple releases a sys with most all media centres including a small HD. Next Apple can release add on's...like 100-200GB extra HD or a Blue Ray drive that connect via a FW800 port...or something similar.
But unless they add the ability to attach a hard drive or something to hold content on then this isn't going to sell at all.
You probably forget that iTunes TV shows are not available nowhere else in the world except the US. Neither are the films for the time being. so what do we have to watch in the rest of the world? Nada!
I really want this to be better for launch. Lets see what happens eh?
Next yr is suppose to be all International titles and movies.
And I'm sure the UK will be one of the first to get them.
Well if you look at the image of the iTv it looks all concept looking.
So I would say it probably does have a HD or a CF drive. Other wise I can't see them running Front Row on the damn thing without it.
My idea is Apple releases a sys with most all media centres including a small HD. Next Apple can release add on's...like 100-200GB extra HD or a Blue Ray drive that connect via a FW800 port...or something similar.
jaguarx
Oct 30, 06:11 PM
Of course it will probably be slightly more expensive but with any luck less than it currently is to go from 1 to 2. Or for that matter 1 to 4. I find it hard to believe Apple will leave it's premiere flagship workstation shipping with less ram by default than it's laptop range. The RAM thing is confusing, I don't know whether I'm better off buying it with 1 gig then buying 4 1G sticks afterwards or whether that will affect performance and I'm better off just buying 4G straight from Apple.
rturner2
Apr 9, 08:59 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Why doesnt Apple allow you to plug a controller in the 30 pin adaptor? Wouldnt that be the best of both worlds?
I agree! I need some buttons. Or wireless via Bluetooth even better.
Why doesnt Apple allow you to plug a controller in the 30 pin adaptor? Wouldnt that be the best of both worlds?
I agree! I need some buttons. Or wireless via Bluetooth even better.
miketcool
Oct 7, 04:22 PM
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, a cupcake is going to take down iPhone?
We currently have Donut. Eclair is coming, followed by many others. I will always take a nice pastry over an apple any day of the week. :D
We currently have Donut. Eclair is coming, followed by many others. I will always take a nice pastry over an apple any day of the week. :D
Cutwolf
Mar 18, 11:30 AM
Found it:
"Furthermore, plans (unless specifically designated for tethering usage) cannot be used for any applications that tether the device (through use of, including without limitation, connection kits, other phone/smartphone to computer accessories, BLUETOOTH� or any other wireless technology) to Personal Computers (including without limitation, laptops), or other equipment for any purpose. Accordingly, AT&T reserves the right to (i) deny, disconnect, modify and/or terminate Service, without notice, to anyone it believes is using the Service in any manner prohibited or whose usage adversely impacts its wireless network or service levels or hinders access to its wireless network, including without limitation, after a significant period of inactivity or after sessions of excessive usage and (ii) otherwise protect its wireless network from harm, compromised capacity or degradation in performance, which may impact legitimate data flows."
Interesting. All AT&T has to do is believe you're tethering and they can modify your plan? I'm going to keep tethering, and if they try to change my plan, get out of my contract with no ETF. Id also be very curious to see how the "believe" provision would hold up in court if they had no other proof than an increase in data usage. I'm guessing not very well.
"Furthermore, plans (unless specifically designated for tethering usage) cannot be used for any applications that tether the device (through use of, including without limitation, connection kits, other phone/smartphone to computer accessories, BLUETOOTH� or any other wireless technology) to Personal Computers (including without limitation, laptops), or other equipment for any purpose. Accordingly, AT&T reserves the right to (i) deny, disconnect, modify and/or terminate Service, without notice, to anyone it believes is using the Service in any manner prohibited or whose usage adversely impacts its wireless network or service levels or hinders access to its wireless network, including without limitation, after a significant period of inactivity or after sessions of excessive usage and (ii) otherwise protect its wireless network from harm, compromised capacity or degradation in performance, which may impact legitimate data flows."
Interesting. All AT&T has to do is believe you're tethering and they can modify your plan? I'm going to keep tethering, and if they try to change my plan, get out of my contract with no ETF. Id also be very curious to see how the "believe" provision would hold up in court if they had no other proof than an increase in data usage. I'm guessing not very well.
Peace
Sep 12, 04:57 PM
Good to know, since I'm not waiting till Q1 to upgrade. Could you elaborate on why you think that.
Because if it is 802.11n most new Macs would have been sold between now and when the device comes out.If the "new" Macs being sold post Sept. won't have a firmware update thats going to leave a LOT of potential customers out.
Simple matter of economics..
Because if it is 802.11n most new Macs would have been sold between now and when the device comes out.If the "new" Macs being sold post Sept. won't have a firmware update thats going to leave a LOT of potential customers out.
Simple matter of economics..
myamid
Sep 12, 07:17 PM
Here's another pic from the event today, taken by the Gizmodo guys...
http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701.JPG
http://www.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701-thumb.JPG
Looks like a squished Mini :p
http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701.JPG
http://www.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701-thumb.JPG
Looks like a squished Mini :p
Hisdem
Mar 11, 08:36 PM
how far is Sendai from Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
so much radiation!!!:eek:
I'm not sure, but considering the amount of reactors that have been failing, I'd say not far enough.
so much radiation!!!:eek:
I'm not sure, but considering the amount of reactors that have been failing, I'd say not far enough.
peharri
Sep 21, 03:04 PM
One thing puzzles me though - the iTV is not a complicated piece of kit, hardly any more so than the mini or any other Mac. So, why did Apple pre-announce earlier this month for release early next year, and not release a finished product?
Well, perhaps it is complicated. I'd imagine the software side in particular will need a lot of work. If, as promised, it supports all of Quicktime, then there has to be an environment capable of running Apple's core QT code. (I'm finding it unlikely there's a full version of Mac OS X in there though would be delighted to be proven wrong.)
I don't think all the pieces were ready. At the same time, I feel Apple needed to promote it as early as possible. It wasn't clear where iTunes was heading and the number of people who want to watch movies on their laptops and iPods is so comparatively small, I think most studios didn't see a point in supporting the system. They had to announce iTV, if only to tell the studios they're serious.
Well, perhaps it is complicated. I'd imagine the software side in particular will need a lot of work. If, as promised, it supports all of Quicktime, then there has to be an environment capable of running Apple's core QT code. (I'm finding it unlikely there's a full version of Mac OS X in there though would be delighted to be proven wrong.)
I don't think all the pieces were ready. At the same time, I feel Apple needed to promote it as early as possible. It wasn't clear where iTunes was heading and the number of people who want to watch movies on their laptops and iPods is so comparatively small, I think most studios didn't see a point in supporting the system. They had to announce iTV, if only to tell the studios they're serious.
javajedi
Oct 8, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Why is the PC faster? It is the OS, not the processor. Windblows uses .dll's Dynamic link libraries. They allow programs to load 2.only what is needed (GUI, and primary API's) and then load pieces of the program as the user uses it. Macs on the other hand load all of the program into memory because, Mac's don't use dll files. So. It takes longer to load a program on a Mac, however once loaded the program will actually perform faster.
As far as Macs being slower at everything. Dude, you obviously have not put a PowerBook up against a PC based notebook recentlly have you? See we sell IBM and Apple. We recently put my 667 up against a 2.0GHZ IBM laptop. The 667 was faster at everything in photoshop than the PC, encoded MP3's faster, and the only it did slower was render HTML. Now you say how much faster? Doesn't matter. If it was .1 seconds faster, it still shows the superiority of the PPC design.
Sure OS X is a 25 year old architecture. My reference is to the flaws of the X86 vs the PPC architecture. If you would like to discuss the flaws in Windows compared to OSX. Well, arn would have to make a dedicated topic for us to discuss it.
Macs run slower than winblows machines. So what. Would you really like to run winblows fast? That would be cool. Sure my machine goes 2.8GHZ, but it crashes once a day. I have never crashed X. Not even when it was a PB. Oh, and btw. I am an MCP, and Apple certified, so yes, I do know what I am talking about.
Come on.. lets get real..
1) Macs don't use shared libraries? You must be using System 6. For the folks who aren't familiar with the concept of the shared library (what Microsoft calls a dynamic link library) simply put shared libs are object orientated pieces of code containing functions/methods and other objects that can be invoked upon from other code. Mac OS X being highly object orientated relies almost exclusively on shared libraries. In the modern world of software engineering we rarely find it necessary to statically build an executable. If you look back at OS 7/8/9, while not as much as 10, developers could take advantage of off the shelf code. (eg, sprockets, mp lib, etc). Also you are not accurate in saying OS X is a 25 year old archiecture.
1.5) Microsoft OS's that use versions of the Windows 2000 kernel (2000 itself and XP) just like Mach, have a hardware abstraction layer. The "DLL Hell" days (Windows ME and below) are over. This is no longer an issue with the new kernel. The fact of the matter is that my P4 2.8 machine running XP is equally as stable as my PowerBook G4 800 running Mac OS X. I have not *ONCE* had either one core dump or "blue screen". Sure programs screw up, and when they do, they die, not the OS. Both OS's are very mature.
2.) I have *literally* put my PC up against my PowerBook, and the PowerBook fails miserably. I've wrote a simple stopwatch Java application that iterate through floating point instructions, and if I my PC finished 2.5 times faster than the PowerBook. If you want more details (hell I'll even give you the code) of my app, I'll be glad to share it with the community. Playing/decoding MP3's faster on the Mac? No way in hell. Winamp uses 0-1% CPU, iTunes consumes 8-12%.
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this. The x86 processor began in the late 70's when Intel first offered the 8086 as a CISC successor to it's 4004 line of processors. Many, many things have changed over the course of 20 years. Had they sit still (like the G4/motorola chip) intel wouldn't be selling products today, now would they? The G4 is not much more than an improved G3 series processor with vector processing instructions. Be honest (especially be honest to yourself!) if you look back and compare the G3/G4, you do see improvements, but not drastic improvements. More clock, the maxbus protocol (debatable), and more cache. One of the reasons why you see Apple adding cache like mad to it's recent products is because they are in between a rock and hard place with this Motorola chip. This is exactly the same approach AMD took with their failing processor, the K5/K6. I want you to contrast this to a P4 with an i850e chipset: Insanely high clock speeds, a 533mhz bus, fast memory with RIMMs @ 4.2GB/s, with a next stop of 9.6GB/s -- to MaxBus. You will soon see why the current generation of PowerPC processors is "inferior", dare I say it.
For the most part I think its fare to say that the current Macintosh hardware performance is �status-quo�. The current best of breed of Macintoshes are slower than the current best of bread PCs. Mac�s are slower - just accept it. I don�t like it any more than you do.
Why is the PC faster? It is the OS, not the processor. Windblows uses .dll's Dynamic link libraries. They allow programs to load 2.only what is needed (GUI, and primary API's) and then load pieces of the program as the user uses it. Macs on the other hand load all of the program into memory because, Mac's don't use dll files. So. It takes longer to load a program on a Mac, however once loaded the program will actually perform faster.
As far as Macs being slower at everything. Dude, you obviously have not put a PowerBook up against a PC based notebook recentlly have you? See we sell IBM and Apple. We recently put my 667 up against a 2.0GHZ IBM laptop. The 667 was faster at everything in photoshop than the PC, encoded MP3's faster, and the only it did slower was render HTML. Now you say how much faster? Doesn't matter. If it was .1 seconds faster, it still shows the superiority of the PPC design.
Sure OS X is a 25 year old architecture. My reference is to the flaws of the X86 vs the PPC architecture. If you would like to discuss the flaws in Windows compared to OSX. Well, arn would have to make a dedicated topic for us to discuss it.
Macs run slower than winblows machines. So what. Would you really like to run winblows fast? That would be cool. Sure my machine goes 2.8GHZ, but it crashes once a day. I have never crashed X. Not even when it was a PB. Oh, and btw. I am an MCP, and Apple certified, so yes, I do know what I am talking about.
Come on.. lets get real..
1) Macs don't use shared libraries? You must be using System 6. For the folks who aren't familiar with the concept of the shared library (what Microsoft calls a dynamic link library) simply put shared libs are object orientated pieces of code containing functions/methods and other objects that can be invoked upon from other code. Mac OS X being highly object orientated relies almost exclusively on shared libraries. In the modern world of software engineering we rarely find it necessary to statically build an executable. If you look back at OS 7/8/9, while not as much as 10, developers could take advantage of off the shelf code. (eg, sprockets, mp lib, etc). Also you are not accurate in saying OS X is a 25 year old archiecture.
1.5) Microsoft OS's that use versions of the Windows 2000 kernel (2000 itself and XP) just like Mach, have a hardware abstraction layer. The "DLL Hell" days (Windows ME and below) are over. This is no longer an issue with the new kernel. The fact of the matter is that my P4 2.8 machine running XP is equally as stable as my PowerBook G4 800 running Mac OS X. I have not *ONCE* had either one core dump or "blue screen". Sure programs screw up, and when they do, they die, not the OS. Both OS's are very mature.
2.) I have *literally* put my PC up against my PowerBook, and the PowerBook fails miserably. I've wrote a simple stopwatch Java application that iterate through floating point instructions, and if I my PC finished 2.5 times faster than the PowerBook. If you want more details (hell I'll even give you the code) of my app, I'll be glad to share it with the community. Playing/decoding MP3's faster on the Mac? No way in hell. Winamp uses 0-1% CPU, iTunes consumes 8-12%.
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this. The x86 processor began in the late 70's when Intel first offered the 8086 as a CISC successor to it's 4004 line of processors. Many, many things have changed over the course of 20 years. Had they sit still (like the G4/motorola chip) intel wouldn't be selling products today, now would they? The G4 is not much more than an improved G3 series processor with vector processing instructions. Be honest (especially be honest to yourself!) if you look back and compare the G3/G4, you do see improvements, but not drastic improvements. More clock, the maxbus protocol (debatable), and more cache. One of the reasons why you see Apple adding cache like mad to it's recent products is because they are in between a rock and hard place with this Motorola chip. This is exactly the same approach AMD took with their failing processor, the K5/K6. I want you to contrast this to a P4 with an i850e chipset: Insanely high clock speeds, a 533mhz bus, fast memory with RIMMs @ 4.2GB/s, with a next stop of 9.6GB/s -- to MaxBus. You will soon see why the current generation of PowerPC processors is "inferior", dare I say it.
For the most part I think its fare to say that the current Macintosh hardware performance is �status-quo�. The current best of breed of Macintoshes are slower than the current best of bread PCs. Mac�s are slower - just accept it. I don�t like it any more than you do.
shawnce
Jul 12, 03:54 PM
Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intellighent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are in elated.
go go Mr. Stereotype
go go Mr. Stereotype
r.j.s
May 2, 11:30 AM
At best, it's a trojan. Still no viruses on MacOS X...
I wouldn't even call it that, it just asks for a credit card number, it doesn't seem to harm anything or steal your data.
More like an annoyance.
I wouldn't even call it that, it just asks for a credit card number, it doesn't seem to harm anything or steal your data.
More like an annoyance.
d-fi
Sep 12, 06:33 PM
I think a lot of people are overlooking what "iTV" does.
It's not a standalone component device that connects to your computer. It's an extension OF your computer.
Ughh, I really hope that Apple upates this product before releasing it for sale.
Come one Apple, what about the:
- TV recording
well you got me there it would be nice if it was a tivo as well but thats not really in apples interest
- DVD player
My mac has a DVD player so that means my tv would as well (and 99% of people already have a component DVD player for their tv) not something i want to pay for if i already have one
- Built In Storage (Hard Drive)
My mac has lots of Hard Drive space and i can add more if i need it. With iTV i can send anything to the TV that quicktime can play (i assume). Again since my computer already has lots of storage i don't want to pay for more and if i did need more space i would rather add space to my computer then to a set top box.
- Input for digital cable
well again it would be nice if it was a set top box as well but thats not really in apples interest so probably not going to happen.
Some analogies:
- It's like an wireless XBOX 360, except it doesn't play games or DVD's.
- It's like a networked DVD player, without the DVD player.
well I'm guessing that the iTV would have a remote (otherwise it will suck) so for DVD's if the DVD is in your mac press play on remote and it goes, that easy. maybe a slight annoyance if your computer is in another room but not hard. But i must point out again that 99% of people have a DVD player, the goal of iTV is to move away from conventional media.
This is slightly off topic but i would much rather pay for a (blue ray/HD-DVD) burner for my computer then a component unit for my tv as i would get much more use out of my (blue ray/HD-DVD) burner with "iTV" then i would ever get out of a component unit plus save me a few $$ by not having to buy both types of units
I'd rather spend $300 on almost ANY OTHER electronics product.
What a disappointment... I guess Apple is just trying to stave off the competition from the media capabilities of Windows Media Center and XBOX.
i guess were on different pages here but i think this unit is an excellent extension of my computer. i will admit i don't really care about recording aspect of the unit because i just download programs if i miss them. Thats the main reason why i would love to stream them to my tv with out moving my computer so i can enjoy all my programs in my living room.
I'm very interested in this unit and i KNOW I'm not alone
(BTW timswim78 just using your post to hi-light my point of view nothing personal :) )
It's not a standalone component device that connects to your computer. It's an extension OF your computer.
Ughh, I really hope that Apple upates this product before releasing it for sale.
Come one Apple, what about the:
- TV recording
well you got me there it would be nice if it was a tivo as well but thats not really in apples interest
- DVD player
My mac has a DVD player so that means my tv would as well (and 99% of people already have a component DVD player for their tv) not something i want to pay for if i already have one
- Built In Storage (Hard Drive)
My mac has lots of Hard Drive space and i can add more if i need it. With iTV i can send anything to the TV that quicktime can play (i assume). Again since my computer already has lots of storage i don't want to pay for more and if i did need more space i would rather add space to my computer then to a set top box.
- Input for digital cable
well again it would be nice if it was a set top box as well but thats not really in apples interest so probably not going to happen.
Some analogies:
- It's like an wireless XBOX 360, except it doesn't play games or DVD's.
- It's like a networked DVD player, without the DVD player.
well I'm guessing that the iTV would have a remote (otherwise it will suck) so for DVD's if the DVD is in your mac press play on remote and it goes, that easy. maybe a slight annoyance if your computer is in another room but not hard. But i must point out again that 99% of people have a DVD player, the goal of iTV is to move away from conventional media.
This is slightly off topic but i would much rather pay for a (blue ray/HD-DVD) burner for my computer then a component unit for my tv as i would get much more use out of my (blue ray/HD-DVD) burner with "iTV" then i would ever get out of a component unit plus save me a few $$ by not having to buy both types of units
I'd rather spend $300 on almost ANY OTHER electronics product.
What a disappointment... I guess Apple is just trying to stave off the competition from the media capabilities of Windows Media Center and XBOX.
i guess were on different pages here but i think this unit is an excellent extension of my computer. i will admit i don't really care about recording aspect of the unit because i just download programs if i miss them. Thats the main reason why i would love to stream them to my tv with out moving my computer so i can enjoy all my programs in my living room.
I'm very interested in this unit and i KNOW I'm not alone
(BTW timswim78 just using your post to hi-light my point of view nothing personal :) )
vniow
Oct 9, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
I don't understand you guys, you say that Windows XP is now stable and maybe you are right, and you say that PC's are faster and the hardware is the same quality for less money.
FOR SELL Sony Ericsson XPERIA
I don't understand you guys, you say that Windows XP is now stable and maybe you are right, and you say that PC's are faster and the hardware is the same quality for less money.
Drewnrupe
Sep 12, 04:23 PM
The other this thing plays HD not SD like the eyeHome.
.
I have seen this stated a few time - but not stated anywhere by apple.
All I picked up form SJ was " we are pleased with the quality"
Sony Ericsson X12 (XPERIA
sony ericsson xperia arc x12
.
I have seen this stated a few time - but not stated anywhere by apple.
All I picked up form SJ was " we are pleased with the quality"
NathanMuir
Mar 13, 11:37 AM
The disaster in Japan is prompting this thread (obviously). I remember when nuclear power was described as the answer to all of our problems. I turned against Nuclear when I realized there was a waste problem, a tremendous problem that won't go away for over a thousand years. My understanding is that there might be a way to recycle nuclear waste, but the U.S. does not recycle nuclear fuel for "economic and security" reasons. I remember reading something about it, that used/recycled fuel could be used as a bomb. Then there are those ten thousand barrels of waste that nobody, especially Nevada do not want. If you look at France a substantial player in nuclear power, they have a "not in my backyard" problem. Throw in unpredictable events such as tsunamis, earthquakes, and terrorist events and nuclear does not seem all that wonderful to me.
Counter views?
Japans main problem, at this time, seems to be that someone thought it was a good idea to build the plants on the Pacific Rim (Yes, I am well aware that the West Coast of the United States lies on the Pacific Rim). A majority of the problems Japan faces currently appear to stem from the earthquake and the fact that the plants were dated and not built to withstand the magnitude of the quake (they were built to within a 7.5 quake, no?).
Counter views?
Japans main problem, at this time, seems to be that someone thought it was a good idea to build the plants on the Pacific Rim (Yes, I am well aware that the West Coast of the United States lies on the Pacific Rim). A majority of the problems Japan faces currently appear to stem from the earthquake and the fact that the plants were dated and not built to withstand the magnitude of the quake (they were built to within a 7.5 quake, no?).
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 15, 01:20 PM
We're placing more importance on the bullying of gays because of the historical and widespread discrimination, hatred, and violence that gays have had to endure (and still endure) that obese people have not. We discussed this 8 pages ago.
So let me get this straight.
Fat people are CONSTANTLY harassed but because the media doesn't report on every fat persons suicide or pain we are now directing to to the Gay community because the media jumps on it. I find this absolutely trash. How about we do something about suicide in America period. Soldiers killing themselves, teens killing themselves over Facebook.
Refers back to my previous post, the Gay community needs to stop singling themselves out.
So let me get this straight.
Fat people are CONSTANTLY harassed but because the media doesn't report on every fat persons suicide or pain we are now directing to to the Gay community because the media jumps on it. I find this absolutely trash. How about we do something about suicide in America period. Soldiers killing themselves, teens killing themselves over Facebook.
Refers back to my previous post, the Gay community needs to stop singling themselves out.
flopticalcube
Apr 22, 11:03 PM
I just don't really get why people who label themselves agnostic try to separate themselves from Atheists. Almost no atheist wouldn't fit under the aboved defined 'gnostic atheist' label. We're all in the same boat here.
I would think most atheists don't give it much thought, like I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about unicorns or orbiting teapots. I doubt anyone could come up with proof of non-existence that was convincing.
Agnostics may be giving it more thought or perhaps spending more time thinking about these things.
I would think most atheists don't give it much thought, like I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about unicorns or orbiting teapots. I doubt anyone could come up with proof of non-existence that was convincing.
Agnostics may be giving it more thought or perhaps spending more time thinking about these things.
samcraig
Mar 18, 12:37 PM
I want that text so I can call them up and lambast the eff out of them.
I'm not jailbroken, I don't tether. But it pisses me off that they are wanting to limit data.
I just checked, my data use per month for the last six months is anywhere from 4GB-7GB a month. Mostly because I stream a radio station. Pandora is better at managing data sending it in packets, this app uses straight streaming.
I'll be staying off my wifi at home and at work.
Ok - so you didn't even get the text. You might never get the text - but yet you're still going to have a tantrum and "teach ATT a lesson" ??? Ok - good luck with that.
I never said anything about it being an accident. I also don't think your argument is "clear" unless you have some kind of internal information that the rest of us don't know about.
If it is really that simple to develop "rules and logic engines" to crack down on tethering, why did it take almost a full year (after introducing tethering) to do it? A logical evaluation of network activity (one that can be done by a computer) works in many cases, but there are always instances where it misses things, or triggers a false alert. AT&T is limited in this regard. I also don't see anything special about the mobile hotspot feature that allows AT&T more access to information that it did not have previously. See the rest of my post.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have
You missed the point of what I said in my post. For one - I explained why they may have waited. Pretty clearly.
I'm guessing a lot of people here are pissing and moaning about something that hasn't even affected them (yet) and might not ever. Which is even sillier. It sounds like very few (if any) on this thread actually GOT the email/txt.
And to reiterate what I said several posts ago (but so few people read full threads...) that I don't agree with ATT charging twice for people on CAPPED plans. If you pay for 2 gigs - you should get 2 gigs - no matter what. It's finite.
But unlimited data is a different matter. And for those that can't understand or see the difference - there's little use in trying to explain it over and over. You don't get it.
I'm not jailbroken, I don't tether. But it pisses me off that they are wanting to limit data.
I just checked, my data use per month for the last six months is anywhere from 4GB-7GB a month. Mostly because I stream a radio station. Pandora is better at managing data sending it in packets, this app uses straight streaming.
I'll be staying off my wifi at home and at work.
Ok - so you didn't even get the text. You might never get the text - but yet you're still going to have a tantrum and "teach ATT a lesson" ??? Ok - good luck with that.
I never said anything about it being an accident. I also don't think your argument is "clear" unless you have some kind of internal information that the rest of us don't know about.
If it is really that simple to develop "rules and logic engines" to crack down on tethering, why did it take almost a full year (after introducing tethering) to do it? A logical evaluation of network activity (one that can be done by a computer) works in many cases, but there are always instances where it misses things, or triggers a false alert. AT&T is limited in this regard. I also don't see anything special about the mobile hotspot feature that allows AT&T more access to information that it did not have previously. See the rest of my post.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have
You missed the point of what I said in my post. For one - I explained why they may have waited. Pretty clearly.
I'm guessing a lot of people here are pissing and moaning about something that hasn't even affected them (yet) and might not ever. Which is even sillier. It sounds like very few (if any) on this thread actually GOT the email/txt.
And to reiterate what I said several posts ago (but so few people read full threads...) that I don't agree with ATT charging twice for people on CAPPED plans. If you pay for 2 gigs - you should get 2 gigs - no matter what. It's finite.
But unlimited data is a different matter. And for those that can't understand or see the difference - there's little use in trying to explain it over and over. You don't get it.
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.
kuwisdelu
Apr 12, 10:57 PM
I don't claim to know anything at all about professional video editing. I only listened to the live feed. And I can say that the FCP pros at NAB sounded like teenage girls at a Justin Bieber concert.
So I'm going to assume it's good.
So I'm going to assume it's good.
Simm0nS777
Mar 18, 12:46 PM
How the hell do you propose they implement an "Hey, it's cool if you tether with your unlimited, since you're just browsing forums" policy? Because, you know what? Not everyone tethering on unlimited is as cool as you.
Maybe if they make everyone pinky swear on it?
I just dont get why all you are acting like children about it. Who cares? what is your 3G download speed gonna go up by .00001?
I see people who claim they have used like 80 gigs in a month. Do I care and cry that ATT should do something about it so they can "clear" up the network for me? No I dont give a crap. My speeds are great even with all that. ATT introducing tethering is MUCH worse than the select few who jailbreak and tether.
Maybe if they make everyone pinky swear on it?
I just dont get why all you are acting like children about it. Who cares? what is your 3G download speed gonna go up by .00001?
I see people who claim they have used like 80 gigs in a month. Do I care and cry that ATT should do something about it so they can "clear" up the network for me? No I dont give a crap. My speeds are great even with all that. ATT introducing tethering is MUCH worse than the select few who jailbreak and tether.
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה