awmazz
Mar 13, 11:34 PM
Why can't people get away from the concept of a centralized power source, like a coal or nuclear plant or even a wind farm to generate their national needs? I even see arguments that 'we don't have the space' for alternative power. Look at an aerial photo of any city and all you see is miles and miles of dead empty blank rooves. Solar panels or even small wind turbines on every single roof in every city will have people either reducing their reliance on a central power source or even contributing their own electricity to the grid to the point you may not even need a central power source, or maybe just one - which could be a wind farm or a nice clean geothermal plant.
Of course that all requires people actually caring more about the world than money, so it ain't gonna happen.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
Geothermal. Magma is 24/7.
Opinions should be the same. Nuclear is clean and efficient, but has potential dangers. Shouldn't take a meltdown to remind anyone of that.
I wish people would stop repeating this public relations line from the nuclear industry PR depts. If they were making cheese, would you believe their cheese is cheesier?
I posted on the first page of this thread that it only looks clean on your end because all the filth and pollution is on our end where it's mined. To wit, 60 MILLION TONNES of radioactive tailings waste from just one mine in just 20 years. Seriously think how much that is - it's one fifth of a tonne of radioactive tailings waste for EVERY man woman and child in the USA. EVERY twenty years. From JUST ONE MINE. Now assure me again how 'clean' nuclear is?
And then once the toxic fuel is spent where to dump all that filthy poisonous waste? In 40 gallon drums in the ocean? Pay another country to bury it so it leaches into their water table?
The *only* clean part nuclear power is the part with the white whispy steam. Ah, look, it's just water, how cleaaaaann! But for the non-steam parts, it really does sound like shatting over the edge of your nests onto others' heads where you can't see the diarrheous filth and delude yourselves into proclaiming that you are being 'clean'. If it was a cartoon it'd actually be funny.
Of course that all requires people actually caring more about the world than money, so it ain't gonna happen.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
Geothermal. Magma is 24/7.
Opinions should be the same. Nuclear is clean and efficient, but has potential dangers. Shouldn't take a meltdown to remind anyone of that.
I wish people would stop repeating this public relations line from the nuclear industry PR depts. If they were making cheese, would you believe their cheese is cheesier?
I posted on the first page of this thread that it only looks clean on your end because all the filth and pollution is on our end where it's mined. To wit, 60 MILLION TONNES of radioactive tailings waste from just one mine in just 20 years. Seriously think how much that is - it's one fifth of a tonne of radioactive tailings waste for EVERY man woman and child in the USA. EVERY twenty years. From JUST ONE MINE. Now assure me again how 'clean' nuclear is?
And then once the toxic fuel is spent where to dump all that filthy poisonous waste? In 40 gallon drums in the ocean? Pay another country to bury it so it leaches into their water table?
The *only* clean part nuclear power is the part with the white whispy steam. Ah, look, it's just water, how cleaaaaann! But for the non-steam parts, it really does sound like shatting over the edge of your nests onto others' heads where you can't see the diarrheous filth and delude yourselves into proclaiming that you are being 'clean'. If it was a cartoon it'd actually be funny.
emotion
Sep 20, 08:40 AM
Come to think of it it is possible that the iTV is in fact an iPod underneath. Might explain some of those persistent wireless ipod rumours and that rumour about an iPod with a 'non-touch' interface.
Just idle thoughts... :)
Just idle thoughts... :)
skunk
Mar 12, 02:52 AM
Explosion reported at Fukushima plant.
An explosion has been heard from a Japanese nuclear power plant hit by Friday's devastating earthquake.
Reports said smoke was seen coming from the plant at Fukushima and several workers were injured.
Japanese officials fear a meltdown at one of the plant's reactors after radioactive material was detected outside it.
A huge relief operation is under way after the 8.9-magnitude earthquake and tsunami, which killed more than 600.
Hundreds more people are missing and it is feared about 1,300 may have died.
Japan's Prime Minister Naoto Kan declared a state of emergency at the Fukushima 1 and 2 power plants as engineers try to confirm whether a reactor at one of the stations has gone into meltdown.
Japan's NHK TV showed before and after pictures of the Fukushima plant. They appeared to show that the outer structure of one of four buildings at the plant had collapsed.
Cooling systems inside several reactors at the plants stopped working after Friday's earthquake cut the power supply.
Japan's nuclear agency said on Saturday that radioactive caesium and iodine had been detected near the number one reactor of the Fukushima 1 plant.
The agency said this may indicate that containers of uranium fuel inside the reactor may have begun melting.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12720219
An explosion has been heard from a Japanese nuclear power plant hit by Friday's devastating earthquake.
Reports said smoke was seen coming from the plant at Fukushima and several workers were injured.
Japanese officials fear a meltdown at one of the plant's reactors after radioactive material was detected outside it.
A huge relief operation is under way after the 8.9-magnitude earthquake and tsunami, which killed more than 600.
Hundreds more people are missing and it is feared about 1,300 may have died.
Japan's Prime Minister Naoto Kan declared a state of emergency at the Fukushima 1 and 2 power plants as engineers try to confirm whether a reactor at one of the stations has gone into meltdown.
Japan's NHK TV showed before and after pictures of the Fukushima plant. They appeared to show that the outer structure of one of four buildings at the plant had collapsed.
Cooling systems inside several reactors at the plants stopped working after Friday's earthquake cut the power supply.
Japan's nuclear agency said on Saturday that radioactive caesium and iodine had been detected near the number one reactor of the Fukushima 1 plant.
The agency said this may indicate that containers of uranium fuel inside the reactor may have begun melting.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12720219
D4F
Apr 28, 09:06 AM
I'm replying just so you don't get the slightest idea in your head that you've won, or that I'm retreating. I'm sitting with my entire office laughing at your naivete and misunderstanding of what modern computer hardware is. Keep digging your hole.
You got one bright office there mate. And thank you for replying so I don't get the slightest idea in my head that I won...
hahaha
You got one bright office there mate. And thank you for replying so I don't get the slightest idea in my head that I won...
hahaha
KnightWRX
May 2, 09:53 AM
Archive Utility will not extract these type of ZIP files to their system paths. I believe it will force the use of relative paths. I really doubt any reports that this malware can be installed without user interaction.
You're right, I just tested this. A zip file created with -jj (absolute paths) does not unzip to the absolute paths using Archive Utility. It unzips it to the current path.
So this requires 100% user intervention to install.
You're right, I just tested this. A zip file created with -jj (absolute paths) does not unzip to the absolute paths using Archive Utility. It unzips it to the current path.
So this requires 100% user intervention to install.
arn
Oct 25, 10:27 PM
Intel is really making Apple quick with those revisions...
seems unlikely that Clovertown would replace the current Mac Pros... just add another high end config.
arn
seems unlikely that Clovertown would replace the current Mac Pros... just add another high end config.
arn
Apple OC
Apr 22, 10:02 PM
Most Atheists do not preach at others to not believe ... they just do not buy into the concept that religious people hang onto.
almost every religious group will try to convince people to believe in some Mythical God ... even referring to it as spreading the word of God.
almost every religious group will try to convince people to believe in some Mythical God ... even referring to it as spreading the word of God.
jefhatfield
Oct 11, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by javajedi
I think it was Back2TheMac who posted earlier in this thread "x86 plain sucks". The reason why he belives the x86 ISA and CISC are inferior is because Apple put out a bunch of marketing in the early days of the PowerPC touting RISC as superior new technology. In today's world, RISC processos really aren't RISC, and CISC processors really are CISC.
I recommend anyone who still believes in this spin to read this:
http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/4q99/risc-cisc/rvc-1.html
It's most informative.
Enjoy
it's really most fascinating...thank you
some of us hardware side IT people often make fun of the software IT people and it is often because of the introverted way most of them act or their lack of knowledge of the hardware side of things
but what's interesting is that the hardware side techies like network engineers and desktop techs would not have anything to implement and maintain if it wasn't for those coders who make it all possible
i always hear a lot about the hardware side of apple's products and the praise they get when things are done right, but i rarely hear about the heroes in the background, the developers who make it all run smoothly
of all the products apple has ever made, the mac operating systems is what really makes a mac a mac:D
I think it was Back2TheMac who posted earlier in this thread "x86 plain sucks". The reason why he belives the x86 ISA and CISC are inferior is because Apple put out a bunch of marketing in the early days of the PowerPC touting RISC as superior new technology. In today's world, RISC processos really aren't RISC, and CISC processors really are CISC.
I recommend anyone who still believes in this spin to read this:
http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/4q99/risc-cisc/rvc-1.html
It's most informative.
Enjoy
it's really most fascinating...thank you
some of us hardware side IT people often make fun of the software IT people and it is often because of the introverted way most of them act or their lack of knowledge of the hardware side of things
but what's interesting is that the hardware side techies like network engineers and desktop techs would not have anything to implement and maintain if it wasn't for those coders who make it all possible
i always hear a lot about the hardware side of apple's products and the praise they get when things are done right, but i rarely hear about the heroes in the background, the developers who make it all run smoothly
of all the products apple has ever made, the mac operating systems is what really makes a mac a mac:D
killr_b
Jul 12, 03:56 PM
And finally... you have a black macbook pro? I'm impressed. :P So did you use Krylon?
Dude, check it out... http://www.colorwarepc.com/products/select_MacBookPro.aspx
A black Macbook Pro looks cool, right. :cool:
Dude, check it out... http://www.colorwarepc.com/products/select_MacBookPro.aspx
A black Macbook Pro looks cool, right. :cool:
Al Coholic
Apr 28, 11:16 AM
To all that insist your Apple kool-aide glass is "half full" I say…
…whatever floats your boat.
But… 3.5% mac market share which includes stupid iPads as computers is pretty dismal (laughable even). As an enterprise user of macs I find that pretty embarrassing and quite telling of where OSX really stands in the grand scheme of things.
After the MS Vista debacle, Steve was handed a CEO's dream to make macs a full contender in the PC arena (or at least a big thorn in the ass) but he chose a different path. A fruitful path to be sure but mac penetration alone today could easily read 15% along side all the iOS success.
But a pitiful 3.5%? Absolutely mind-boggling.
Any CEO who couldn't manage this with 35 billion in cash (at the time of Vista) should be grilled by the Board. Of course he blew it in '83 as well so why am I surprised?
Rolling out Leopard in '07 had the potential to at least be a tiny nail for the Vista/Windows coffin but Steve couldn't wield the hammer. Instead we get a pathetic followup to Leopard so dismal in features Apple admits it doesn't warrant a new name. They even apologize in advance by making it only a $29 upgrade. And now in 2011 and we'll get iLion. It's all about iOS folks. And Apple has shown it doesn't multitask very well.
My family has macs, iPhones, iPods, even an iPad. But with all these iDevices, we always gravitate to the macs to actually get something useful done. They are the mothership for all that we do… the real muscle, the "bread and butter" of our productivity-based lives. Ironically, if it weren't for Apple's adversary in the industry and their office suite... a few of us would still be forced to use Windows exclusively.
I'm sure Apple can do better with macs in the enterprise market but either they don't want to or don't know how. Either of which is troubling. To me, it's clear they will always be a general consumer company that's perfectly content with a user base who spends its time face-booking, twittering and playing with pissed off cartoon birds.
What Apple hasn't figured out though is that one day we grow up and need something else.
…whatever floats your boat.
But… 3.5% mac market share which includes stupid iPads as computers is pretty dismal (laughable even). As an enterprise user of macs I find that pretty embarrassing and quite telling of where OSX really stands in the grand scheme of things.
After the MS Vista debacle, Steve was handed a CEO's dream to make macs a full contender in the PC arena (or at least a big thorn in the ass) but he chose a different path. A fruitful path to be sure but mac penetration alone today could easily read 15% along side all the iOS success.
But a pitiful 3.5%? Absolutely mind-boggling.
Any CEO who couldn't manage this with 35 billion in cash (at the time of Vista) should be grilled by the Board. Of course he blew it in '83 as well so why am I surprised?
Rolling out Leopard in '07 had the potential to at least be a tiny nail for the Vista/Windows coffin but Steve couldn't wield the hammer. Instead we get a pathetic followup to Leopard so dismal in features Apple admits it doesn't warrant a new name. They even apologize in advance by making it only a $29 upgrade. And now in 2011 and we'll get iLion. It's all about iOS folks. And Apple has shown it doesn't multitask very well.
My family has macs, iPhones, iPods, even an iPad. But with all these iDevices, we always gravitate to the macs to actually get something useful done. They are the mothership for all that we do… the real muscle, the "bread and butter" of our productivity-based lives. Ironically, if it weren't for Apple's adversary in the industry and their office suite... a few of us would still be forced to use Windows exclusively.
I'm sure Apple can do better with macs in the enterprise market but either they don't want to or don't know how. Either of which is troubling. To me, it's clear they will always be a general consumer company that's perfectly content with a user base who spends its time face-booking, twittering and playing with pissed off cartoon birds.
What Apple hasn't figured out though is that one day we grow up and need something else.
Demoman
Sep 12, 07:43 PM
What do you think? Is this going to be part of a component system which may included a Blue-Ray, DVD, Mini...system stackable and user configurable?
Peterkro
Mar 13, 03:01 PM
If you choose not to have nuclear power, you're choosing to have oil - and all the problems that brings with it.
That is not true at all,it's not a binary choice.As I've said before the most effective answer in the short term is to stop wasting energy unnecessarily.Given the lead time and cost overruns on Nuclear plants it's not economically viable:
"The period before 2030 forecasts nuclear power to be using the existing technology of fissile reactors, with more advanced technologies coming online after 2030 (See Figure IVA.2.).
The 2030 IEA Reference forecast follows a �business as usual� scenario. In this forecast, nuclear power trails alternative methods of power generation by approximately 3 to 1, and thus declines in percent of total electricity produced from 16% to 10%. In the IEA Alternative Policy forecast, nuclear power grows at a more rapid rate, but it is outpaced by alternative power generation technologies, declining from 16% to 14% of total electricity generated. The Alte
rnative Policy case assumes that there is an effort to curtail global warming that includes measures to boost the role of nuclear power."
http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/25-TTG-Nuclear-Power.pdf
That is not true at all,it's not a binary choice.As I've said before the most effective answer in the short term is to stop wasting energy unnecessarily.Given the lead time and cost overruns on Nuclear plants it's not economically viable:
"The period before 2030 forecasts nuclear power to be using the existing technology of fissile reactors, with more advanced technologies coming online after 2030 (See Figure IVA.2.).
The 2030 IEA Reference forecast follows a �business as usual� scenario. In this forecast, nuclear power trails alternative methods of power generation by approximately 3 to 1, and thus declines in percent of total electricity produced from 16% to 10%. In the IEA Alternative Policy forecast, nuclear power grows at a more rapid rate, but it is outpaced by alternative power generation technologies, declining from 16% to 14% of total electricity generated. The Alte
rnative Policy case assumes that there is an effort to curtail global warming that includes measures to boost the role of nuclear power."
http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/25-TTG-Nuclear-Power.pdf
kntgsp
Mar 18, 04:50 AM
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Napster and Limewire? What is this, 2002?
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Napster and Limewire? What is this, 2002?
UnixMac
Oct 9, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
that alone is enough reason for me to buy mac ;)
it's not way more expensive for what you get, but i would like to see ibooks be $999 us and tibooks $1999 for starters
towers can come down a couple hundred and emac could stand to be $999 and imac at $1099
crt imac can go for $599 and os x can go for $99 dollars
but i still prefer the mac os and mac hardware over windows and pc boxes/laptops
Amen Brother!
that alone is enough reason for me to buy mac ;)
it's not way more expensive for what you get, but i would like to see ibooks be $999 us and tibooks $1999 for starters
towers can come down a couple hundred and emac could stand to be $999 and imac at $1099
crt imac can go for $599 and os x can go for $99 dollars
but i still prefer the mac os and mac hardware over windows and pc boxes/laptops
Amen Brother!
*LTD*
Apr 10, 09:17 AM
And it still won't work.
Except . . . it is.
The REAL story here isn't whether mobile gaming - the likes of which we see *currently* and the likes of which we will see in the *near future* (this is just the tip of the iceberg) will be a major force in gaming (it already is) but rather, that "hardcore gamers" feel so threatened by this.
And here's an even deeper fear of theirs, buried in the subtext: that in time, console gaming will shift to a touch-based tablet paradigm - possibly not in terms a complete replacement for consoles, but in terms of the way developers (and big-name developers) shift their attention to mobile gaming at the expense of consoles, in order to enjoy possibly far greater profits thanks to a much larger audience. After all, consoles are severely limited in their current state. Gaming and maybe Blu Ray playback. Mobile devices, however, offer a galaxy of possibilities - soon to be indispensable tools for nearly everyone.
Imagine big-name, premier titles appearing on mobile devices first before being ported over to that box you hook up to the TV with the big-button controller that RROD'd just last month?
It's really amusing.
Welcome, gamers.
Seriously.
And think about this. When Steve drops to the grave, Apple's DNA of 'forward thinking' will falter. It's not so much different when you see the great Roman Empire get eaten up by internal in-fighting from ego and greed after the great Emperor dies, all the while being circled by Visigoths ready to take it down.
You mean Microsoft, right? And the interesting part is, Gates is still alive.
Except . . . it is.
The REAL story here isn't whether mobile gaming - the likes of which we see *currently* and the likes of which we will see in the *near future* (this is just the tip of the iceberg) will be a major force in gaming (it already is) but rather, that "hardcore gamers" feel so threatened by this.
And here's an even deeper fear of theirs, buried in the subtext: that in time, console gaming will shift to a touch-based tablet paradigm - possibly not in terms a complete replacement for consoles, but in terms of the way developers (and big-name developers) shift their attention to mobile gaming at the expense of consoles, in order to enjoy possibly far greater profits thanks to a much larger audience. After all, consoles are severely limited in their current state. Gaming and maybe Blu Ray playback. Mobile devices, however, offer a galaxy of possibilities - soon to be indispensable tools for nearly everyone.
Imagine big-name, premier titles appearing on mobile devices first before being ported over to that box you hook up to the TV with the big-button controller that RROD'd just last month?
It's really amusing.
Welcome, gamers.
Seriously.
And think about this. When Steve drops to the grave, Apple's DNA of 'forward thinking' will falter. It's not so much different when you see the great Roman Empire get eaten up by internal in-fighting from ego and greed after the great Emperor dies, all the while being circled by Visigoths ready to take it down.
You mean Microsoft, right? And the interesting part is, Gates is still alive.
eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 08:15 PM
That's ok. I was responding to the hypothetical situation of a couple burning music cd's for their wedding and handing them out (thus breaking a copyright) to their guests which I said there was nothing wrong with.I really wish it was okay. But all it takes is for one of those guests to be a busy-body radio station employee or someone otherwise with record industry contacts to send an email to the RIAA or ASCAP or someone to put your videography business in court.
UnixMac
Oct 7, 07:54 PM
Hi AtomBoy......great english for being from Japan, or are you an ex-pat?
Anyway, I agree, the OS X part of a Mac is worth being a little behind on Mhz/DDR/etc...but I still want Apple to be "on par" atleast with Wintel, since I am spending close to double for their machines as if I had bought an unglybox.
Anyway, I agree, the OS X part of a Mac is worth being a little behind on Mhz/DDR/etc...but I still want Apple to be "on par" atleast with Wintel, since I am spending close to double for their machines as if I had bought an unglybox.
digitalbiker
Sep 12, 04:31 PM
I'd like nothing better than to be able to dump Comcast completely, but without the ability to watch live sports, it's a no-go. If they start streaming games for a couple bucks, I'd definitely take a look at it.
-- Any regular-season game from any sport = $1.99
-- Any playoff game from any sport = $2.99
-- NFL season pass (1 team, 16 games) = $30
Poison Ivy
![]()
-- Any regular-season game from any sport = $1.99
-- Any playoff game from any sport = $2.99
-- NFL season pass (1 team, 16 games) = $30
crackbookpro
Apr 13, 11:52 AM
I'm getting this, but I will still be using FC Studio 7 a ton... I agree with both sides a lot on these ongoing threads/disagreements on the new release of FCPX.
I altogether, do think it will be a great release, I just know some want some other features, functions, benefits... and are waiting.
I altogether, do think it will be a great release, I just know some want some other features, functions, benefits... and are waiting.
applefan69
Apr 9, 01:53 PM
I used to have an iPhone, and I like a few of the games for it. I even liked playing them on my iPad.
Considering how the phone barely makes it through a day without being charged, a separate dedicated handheld console is a blessing to most gamers.
Most people that say iOS games are good and cheap end up spending lots more money on more iOS games than they would on a few dedicated games. Plus, I always prefer to have a physical copy... I don't like the idea of all my downloads going walkabout some day.
Oh, and try to be more mature in your reply next time please. That was uncalled for and childish.
meh, 40 games at $0.99 is alot better than one game at $40. I dont care how you put it, you cant argue that.
BTW my iphone 3gs easily gets a whole days batter
y. Thats with me using it all day including for games (no gps nav.) I would say YOUR iPhone has a bad battery, probably from bad charging habits and being left in the cold. But because YOUR iphone has a bad battery, I would not sum up all iPhones. The world does not revolve around you.
Considering how the phone barely makes it through a day without being charged, a separate dedicated handheld console is a blessing to most gamers.
Most people that say iOS games are good and cheap end up spending lots more money on more iOS games than they would on a few dedicated games. Plus, I always prefer to have a physical copy... I don't like the idea of all my downloads going walkabout some day.
Oh, and try to be more mature in your reply next time please. That was uncalled for and childish.
meh, 40 games at $0.99 is alot better than one game at $40. I dont care how you put it, you cant argue that.
BTW my iphone 3gs easily gets a whole days batter
y. Thats with me using it all day including for games (no gps nav.) I would say YOUR iPhone has a bad battery, probably from bad charging habits and being left in the cold. But because YOUR iphone has a bad battery, I would not sum up all iPhones. The world does not revolve around you.
.Andy
Apr 26, 04:27 PM
In Lanciano, Italy.
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano2.pdf
This is absolutely and utterly insane. To believe this is exactly what is wrong with religious people's ability for critical thought. Honestly that in 2011 people can seriously put this stuff out in the public without being absolute laughing stocks astounds me. It's an utter sham and a hoax. Nothing more.
edit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SfXvMlb8u0&feature;=related
And this lady just likely has glossitis or could even be a squamous cell carcinoma of her tongue. These people are mental.
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano2.pdf
This is absolutely and utterly insane. To believe this is exactly what is wrong with religious people's ability for critical thought. Honestly that in 2011 people can seriously put this stuff out in the public without being absolute laughing stocks astounds me. It's an utter sham and a hoax. Nothing more.
edit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SfXvMlb8u0&feature;=related
And this lady just likely has glossitis or could even be a squamous cell carcinoma of her tongue. These people are mental.
Inhale420
Oct 11, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by j763
[ANTI-WINDOWS]
BUT... i'd like to raise this important point. wtf are the win32 users using their CPU power for? Typing up word documents really fast? browsing the web with Internet Exporer v6.000.21312.185726351;SP1? or perhaps having to wait only 10 seconds for windows media player to launch? win32 is simply a craptacular operating system to the extent where it shouldn't be recognized (and i certainly don't recognize it) as a real operating system. mac and *nix (excl. linux-on-the-desktop) is where it's at. get over it.
[/ANTI-WINDOWS]
you gotta be ****ing kidding me. it's so amusing to witness the brainwashed and ignorant roam the earth. yes, i use the latest version of ie and browse these forums 10x faster than whatever mac browser you're using. i only have the default ie on my mac, because there's no point in installing other browsers when you have a pc.
i also have a hell of an easier time developing for the web using the tabbeb-based version of dreamweaver and coldfusion studio. i export 3ds artwork to flash, and the performance of my 2 year old 1ghz athlon is amazing. and when i'm done with work, I USE MY PC AS A GAME MACHINE. the only reason i have a mac, is because i really want to use them for 2d graphics, but apple really ****ing do something brilliant if they expect me to upgrade.
so can you explain what you mean by 'not recognizing' windows? that statement made absolutely NO sense. don't be such a bigot.
[ANTI-WINDOWS]
BUT... i'd like to raise this important point. wtf are the win32 users using their CPU power for? Typing up word documents really fast? browsing the web with Internet Exporer v6.000.21312.185726351;SP1? or perhaps having to wait only 10 seconds for windows media player to launch? win32 is simply a craptacular operating system to the extent where it shouldn't be recognized (and i certainly don't recognize it) as a real operating system. mac and *nix (excl. linux-on-the-desktop) is where it's at. get over it.
[/ANTI-WINDOWS]
you gotta be ****ing kidding me. it's so amusing to witness the brainwashed and ignorant roam the earth. yes, i use the latest version of ie and browse these forums 10x faster than whatever mac browser you're using. i only have the default ie on my mac, because there's no point in installing other browsers when you have a pc.
i also have a hell of an easier time developing for the web using the tabbeb-based version of dreamweaver and coldfusion studio. i export 3ds artwork to flash, and the performance of my 2 year old 1ghz athlon is amazing. and when i'm done with work, I USE MY PC AS A GAME MACHINE. the only reason i have a mac, is because i really want to use them for 2d graphics, but apple really ****ing do something brilliant if they expect me to upgrade.
so can you explain what you mean by 'not recognizing' windows? that statement made absolutely NO sense. don't be such a bigot.
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.
emotion
Sep 24, 03:52 AM
If Apple does force the thing to need a computer, I think they need to come out with an 'iTunes server' box that can fufill the same role, and it has to be cheap.
Mac Mini? I suspect that's exactly what Apple wants to drive sales of.
I know, they need to be cheaper.
Mac Mini? I suspect that's exactly what Apple wants to drive sales of.
I know, they need to be cheaper.
