kdarling
Apr 21, 09:01 AM
And a nice Skype app that was able to send your private data out.
You apparently didn't read the article you quoted.
That version of Skype (since fixed) did not itself send any private data, which by the way, it has your permission to access.
It had a bug in the file permissions it used for caching contact etc info, which meant that it was possible for someone to write an app to look at it, since Skype didn't encrypt their cache files. There's no evidence anyone did so, though.
Kind of like how iOS apparently has a bug where our location history is available to anyone who writes an app to look at it.
You apparently didn't read the article you quoted.
That version of Skype (since fixed) did not itself send any private data, which by the way, it has your permission to access.
It had a bug in the file permissions it used for caching contact etc info, which meant that it was possible for someone to write an app to look at it, since Skype didn't encrypt their cache files. There's no evidence anyone did so, though.
Kind of like how iOS apparently has a bug where our location history is available to anyone who writes an app to look at it.
dialectician
Aug 29, 08:46 PM
IMHO, Greenpeace is not to be trusted. They are highly-biased activists who, like most activist groups (right or left), have the unstated, main goal of needing to justify their continuing existence. Greenpeace, in particular, is notorious for having blinders on to the point they don't have any perspective in the real world beyond the utopian fantasies. I'm all for having reasonable, workable policies that are responsible and benefit society, but letting Greenpeace be the dictator of what those policies should be is naieve and dangerous.
Who says Greenpeace should dictate the policies? But if Dell can do it, Apple can, also...
Who says Greenpeace should dictate the policies? But if Dell can do it, Apple can, also...
DakotaGuy
Oct 9, 10:11 PM
I headed into the city after I was done teaching today and decided to go into the Gateway Country store and check out the new PC's. They are FAST and XP does seem just as nice as OSX. The guy quoted me some great prices as well. I want an all in one so I am looking at getting a new Profile. The guy told me that it is a lot faster then the iMac because the iMac has only 800MHz and even the cheapest Profile has a 1.7 Ghz processor. I use a computer at home for things like internet, email, digital photography, MP3's, etc. He showed me how great XP handles all of that stuff. I was impressed, before everyone slams the PC they really should go out and check out the new ones running XP.
Like I said before I never considered getting a PC, but after reading comments over and over by people on here I can see their point on what computer is becoming a better value for people like me who use a computer like I do.
It will probably be about a year until I get a new computer, I feel comfortable with the Mac and I do like OSX, but they seem like they are becoming poorer and poorer machines. My magical price point is around $1200-$1500 and I can't go over that. Like I said before it will probably be a year before I actually upgrade my desktop. I love my iBook and won't part with that, but I might try a Profile for a new desktop. I like the new eMac for the price, but by next year the eMac might be at 1 GHz but the Profile will probably be at 3Ghz and it just seems like a very poor value for the price.
Like I said before I never considered getting a PC, but after reading comments over and over by people on here I can see their point on what computer is becoming a better value for people like me who use a computer like I do.
It will probably be about a year until I get a new computer, I feel comfortable with the Mac and I do like OSX, but they seem like they are becoming poorer and poorer machines. My magical price point is around $1200-$1500 and I can't go over that. Like I said before it will probably be a year before I actually upgrade my desktop. I love my iBook and won't part with that, but I might try a Profile for a new desktop. I like the new eMac for the price, but by next year the eMac might be at 1 GHz but the Profile will probably be at 3Ghz and it just seems like a very poor value for the price.
greenstork
Sep 20, 05:49 PM
Just thought I'd add some tidbits to the DVR discussion. As a few others have pointed out, El Gato and others don't do digital cable content. Digital cable is encoded and the only way to decode it currently is with a cable company set-top box or a CableCARD.
Any device that is capable of accepting a CableCARD must be certified by CableLabs, which is setup and run by all of the cable companies.
CableLabs certified CableCARD devices go through a rigorous certification process. There are a handful of televisions certified and only one DVR, the TiVo Series 3. Windows Media Centers have been waiting for CableCARDs for years but CableLabs won't certify Media Center PCs until Vista comes out, with it's much stronger DRM. Because OS X's/Quicktime's DRM just isn't that difficult to hack, it's going to be a long time before we see a CableCARD capable device working in or alongside a Mac. In other words, Macs won't be recording a digital TV stream for a couple of years at least.
Sure, you could hook up a set-top box to your Mac but then the signal has been converted from digital to analog, back to digital again. Also, you have no control over the channel unless you implement some IR blaster device or something. And that solution is far from easy to use, I'll stick with my TiVo for high definition dual channel recording.
Any device that is capable of accepting a CableCARD must be certified by CableLabs, which is setup and run by all of the cable companies.
CableLabs certified CableCARD devices go through a rigorous certification process. There are a handful of televisions certified and only one DVR, the TiVo Series 3. Windows Media Centers have been waiting for CableCARDs for years but CableLabs won't certify Media Center PCs until Vista comes out, with it's much stronger DRM. Because OS X's/Quicktime's DRM just isn't that difficult to hack, it's going to be a long time before we see a CableCARD capable device working in or alongside a Mac. In other words, Macs won't be recording a digital TV stream for a couple of years at least.
Sure, you could hook up a set-top box to your Mac but then the signal has been converted from digital to analog, back to digital again. Also, you have no control over the channel unless you implement some IR blaster device or something. And that solution is far from easy to use, I'll stick with my TiVo for high definition dual channel recording.
Torrijos
Apr 13, 07:56 AM
People don't even realize the amount of work necessary to bring a project like this to term.
I really hope all this goodness is going to trickle down the rest of Apple's software offering, from OS components to the rest of the Pro apps, through iApps (the iWork suite is in dire need of a refresh, Numbers has tons of bugs and slows to a crawl with complex projects).
I really hope all this goodness is going to trickle down the rest of Apple's software offering, from OS components to the rest of the Pro apps, through iApps (the iWork suite is in dire need of a refresh, Numbers has tons of bugs and slows to a crawl with complex projects).
slinger1968
Nov 3, 03:14 AM
A significant amount of multimedia related software already will use more than two cores and can be run simultaneously to easily hose an 8-core Mac Pro now.Well a significant amount of 3D and video software currently uses more than 2 cores but that's still a very small segment of the overall computing market. The multi-core market can't be ignored, I'm not saying it should be, but it's still not going to appeal to the masses until the rest, the majority, of the software out there catches up.
Quad core imac's would be pointless right now but maybe they wont be in 6 months if software catches up. It's pretty clear that hardware is ahead software at the moment but it will catch up again. It's gone back and forth for as long as I can remember.
Quad core imac's would be pointless right now but maybe they wont be in 6 months if software catches up. It's pretty clear that hardware is ahead software at the moment but it will catch up again. It's gone back and forth for as long as I can remember.
AP_piano295
Apr 23, 01:04 AM
The ad at the top is calling us out.
>>I'm referring to an ad that says "Learn grammar punctuation."
Haha very possible, as far as grammar goes my primary rule is (does it sound alright? Yeah, well it's probably grammaticality accurate enough ;))
And punctuation, well...
. = end of sentence
, = for throwing in when your sentences look to long to be quite right
? = questions
! = exclamations
as for the rest of them :eek: I know I tend to use a colon when I'm starting a list but that's mostly just because it looks right :D.
Oh well more than half of my college professors speak barely passable English and a fair number of my fellow students as well. So i'm above average...right? :rolleyes:
>>I'm referring to an ad that says "Learn grammar punctuation."
Haha very possible, as far as grammar goes my primary rule is (does it sound alright? Yeah, well it's probably grammaticality accurate enough ;))
And punctuation, well...
. = end of sentence
, = for throwing in when your sentences look to long to be quite right
? = questions
! = exclamations
as for the rest of them :eek: I know I tend to use a colon when I'm starting a list but that's mostly just because it looks right :D.
Oh well more than half of my college professors speak barely passable English and a fair number of my fellow students as well. So i'm above average...right? :rolleyes:
skunk
Mar 14, 06:18 PM
Nobody seems to think of abandoning coal when a bunch of miners die. I think there have been more coal related deaths than nuclear ones.What coal-fired power station had the capability of endangering so many people?
Howdr
Mar 18, 08:35 AM
OMG you still done get it:
Let's try explaining it this way...
When you subscribe to cable, you pick a package that provides you with the channels that you want. There are various packages, but ultimately it's all just video streaming over a cable (bits in this day and age, not analog)...
Based on yours and others arguements, why can't we all just pay for basic cable and get all 500+ channels plus the premium channels for free? Very simply, you're paying for a package with specific features....
No no, as long as you abide by the amount of data in the plan it should not matter how you use it.
You can't steal what you paid for, you buy 100 cable channels that is what you get and use
You buy 2gb and use 1gb you have used 1gb no matter if its on the phone or laptop. 1gb= 1gb
With your cellular service, you chose a package that meets your needs. You have 3 options for data plans at this point, well, 4 technically...
1) Your grandfathered unlimited plan
2) 250mb
3) Data Pro 2GB
4) Data Pro 2GB + Tethering 2GB for a total of 4GB....
Ok? the tethering give you 2gb for the money I see that and I have read the tethering and Data pro are added to total 4gb for the charge. So you and At&t prove my point thank you! Data=Data, they add it together and it is the same.
Tethering is not the same as using the data on your device, essentially tethering is using your phone as a modem. You data plan (which I'm assuming is either unlimited or 250mb) does not include the feature of using your phone as a modem, that's what the extra charge is for....
If you want to tether, you need to pay for the appropriate package. Just like if you want HBO, Showtime, or HDTV you need to pay for the appropriate cable package...
LOL no its the same use of Data as on the phone.
Tethering does not do something different to AT&t, its just using Data
you may not understand how Data is used from the source but I assure you there is no difference to AT&t when you tether and when you surf YOUTUBE on the phone.
To At&t Data=Data and its been their words not mine every time its printed by them.
So far I have not seen an argument that proves otherwise.:rolleyes:
Let's try explaining it this way...
When you subscribe to cable, you pick a package that provides you with the channels that you want. There are various packages, but ultimately it's all just video streaming over a cable (bits in this day and age, not analog)...
Based on yours and others arguements, why can't we all just pay for basic cable and get all 500+ channels plus the premium channels for free? Very simply, you're paying for a package with specific features....
No no, as long as you abide by the amount of data in the plan it should not matter how you use it.
You can't steal what you paid for, you buy 100 cable channels that is what you get and use
You buy 2gb and use 1gb you have used 1gb no matter if its on the phone or laptop. 1gb= 1gb
With your cellular service, you chose a package that meets your needs. You have 3 options for data plans at this point, well, 4 technically...
1) Your grandfathered unlimited plan
2) 250mb
3) Data Pro 2GB
4) Data Pro 2GB + Tethering 2GB for a total of 4GB....
Ok? the tethering give you 2gb for the money I see that and I have read the tethering and Data pro are added to total 4gb for the charge. So you and At&t prove my point thank you! Data=Data, they add it together and it is the same.
Tethering is not the same as using the data on your device, essentially tethering is using your phone as a modem. You data plan (which I'm assuming is either unlimited or 250mb) does not include the feature of using your phone as a modem, that's what the extra charge is for....
If you want to tether, you need to pay for the appropriate package. Just like if you want HBO, Showtime, or HDTV you need to pay for the appropriate cable package...
LOL no its the same use of Data as on the phone.
Tethering does not do something different to AT&t, its just using Data
you may not understand how Data is used from the source but I assure you there is no difference to AT&t when you tether and when you surf YOUTUBE on the phone.
To At&t Data=Data and its been their words not mine every time its printed by them.
So far I have not seen an argument that proves otherwise.:rolleyes:
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.
Rodimus Prime
Oct 7, 02:18 PM
Valid points, except you're looking at a micro-niche of power-users, while the iPhone's massive growth comes from a much broader market than that. Android will (and does) take some power-user market share, and I look forward to seeing where it goes.
The big thing though is DEVELOPER share. Apps. Android will run--in different flavors--on a number of different phones, offering choice in screen size, features, hard vs. virtual keys, etc. That sounds great--but will the same APP run on all those flavors? No. The app market will be fragmented among incompatible models. There's no good way out of that--it's one advantage Apple's model will hang on to.
yet all the one advantage the apple model has it killed by the fact that how difficult it is to get an app approved and no way to directly sell it to the consumer.
That is what going to hurt apple in the good devs leaving. The best devs are starting to get fed up with apple system and looking elsewhere.
The big thing though is DEVELOPER share. Apps. Android will run--in different flavors--on a number of different phones, offering choice in screen size, features, hard vs. virtual keys, etc. That sounds great--but will the same APP run on all those flavors? No. The app market will be fragmented among incompatible models. There's no good way out of that--it's one advantage Apple's model will hang on to.
yet all the one advantage the apple model has it killed by the fact that how difficult it is to get an app approved and no way to directly sell it to the consumer.
That is what going to hurt apple in the good devs leaving. The best devs are starting to get fed up with apple system and looking elsewhere.
Macinthetosh
Apr 28, 12:55 PM
Agree. Too bad the iMac never took off in the enterprise sector. I remember when I was going to the university in the 90's I saw plenty of macs all around campus. Now the times I've gone all I see are Dell's, and HP's.
MacBook Pros, iMacs, and iPads are seen everywhere you look at LMU, UCLA, and USC.
MacBook Pros, iMacs, and iPads are seen everywhere you look at LMU, UCLA, and USC.
citizenzen
Mar 15, 10:39 PM
you might want to rethink what I mean by contained ...
It's too undefined...
Contained to the reactor?
Contained to the plant?
Contained to the locality?
Contained to the island?
Contained in the hemisphere?
Contained to the Earth?
It's too undefined...
Contained to the reactor?
Contained to the plant?
Contained to the locality?
Contained to the island?
Contained in the hemisphere?
Contained to the Earth?
Surely
Apr 15, 09:52 AM
And it would never be pick up by the media. Like I said the media does not pay any attention to it and with out the media doing anything those groups can never get traction.
LGBT group yes are targeted the others it is hit or miss if the person is targeted. LGBT is going to be pick on pretty much no matter what. Fat kid may or may not be pick on. I have learned that humans are nothing more than things like chickens. That is if you put a chicken in a group with an injured leg the others will peck it to death. At first the injury might not of been a big deal but over time the extra damage adds up and kill it and the more it gets pecked at the worse it gets. All because it is different.
I don't agree. If those groups got organized, their message would eventually get picked up my the media. It's not like LGBT groups were started last weekend and, bam, the media picked up on it. It took decades for them to get to this point of media attention.
And I agree with Heilage: the message from the video doesn't only apply to LGBT folk.
LGBT group yes are targeted the others it is hit or miss if the person is targeted. LGBT is going to be pick on pretty much no matter what. Fat kid may or may not be pick on. I have learned that humans are nothing more than things like chickens. That is if you put a chicken in a group with an injured leg the others will peck it to death. At first the injury might not of been a big deal but over time the extra damage adds up and kill it and the more it gets pecked at the worse it gets. All because it is different.
I don't agree. If those groups got organized, their message would eventually get picked up my the media. It's not like LGBT groups were started last weekend and, bam, the media picked up on it. It took decades for them to get to this point of media attention.
And I agree with Heilage: the message from the video doesn't only apply to LGBT folk.
nixd2001
Oct 8, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
one thing is certain, the athlon is faster than the duron, the pentium 4 is faster than the celeron, and the G4 is faster (in photoshop) than the G3...but beyond that, it is hard to get a perfect reading
True, but hardly going to provoke torrents of postings of heated debate and disagreement - surely a necessity in modern society :p
my overclocked 2 cents;)
So that's 2 cents of irrational exuberence then?
one thing is certain, the athlon is faster than the duron, the pentium 4 is faster than the celeron, and the G4 is faster (in photoshop) than the G3...but beyond that, it is hard to get a perfect reading
True, but hardly going to provoke torrents of postings of heated debate and disagreement - surely a necessity in modern society :p
my overclocked 2 cents;)
So that's 2 cents of irrational exuberence then?
mkjellman
Mar 18, 02:43 PM
For those who don't speak the lingo-
Digital Rights Managment
It is a huge source of debate within the recording industry, the consumer, and the online stores who are selling digital management. This is what limits you to the number of times you can burn a playlist, play the music on other computers, and use it on portable devices. It is the recording industries way of reducing piracy of their software, but that is up to debate.
What is big is that there is no OS X binary yet, so we will see. I am also surprised the John has not focused on Janus yet, I hope he does because it would send a very clear message to the recording industry.
I personally use Hymn because I need my music to be compatible with Traktor and my Roku device. I think it will be very difficult for Apple to stop this unless they release a new "security" patch for iTunes modifying their protocol.
Time will tell.
Digital Rights Managment
It is a huge source of debate within the recording industry, the consumer, and the online stores who are selling digital management. This is what limits you to the number of times you can burn a playlist, play the music on other computers, and use it on portable devices. It is the recording industries way of reducing piracy of their software, but that is up to debate.
What is big is that there is no OS X binary yet, so we will see. I am also surprised the John has not focused on Janus yet, I hope he does because it would send a very clear message to the recording industry.
I personally use Hymn because I need my music to be compatible with Traktor and my Roku device. I think it will be very difficult for Apple to stop this unless they release a new "security" patch for iTunes modifying their protocol.
Time will tell.
Caliber26
Apr 15, 10:27 AM
You would be one of them. It stings when the mirror is held up in front of you, doesn't it? I was like you at one time too, and I know where you are right now. At some point, you will come to understand that there is a difference between people who are simply trying to be themselves (us) and people who are trying to keep us from being ourselves (social conservatives). One deserves respect, one does not.
No, sorry. There's nothing stinging. And that's not a mirror he's holding up to me, either. He's basically telling me that I "hate" myself. That's a very strong word to use towards someone you don't know at all.
In case you haven't read my other posts: there is NOTHING wrong with being gay and disagreeing with certain aspects of homosexuality and the lifestyle attached to it, or what the media says and does in our "favor".
I'm sorry, dude, but this is not a case of 'crap or get off the pot'. We, as a gay community, are nothing more than a blend of a million different tastes and flavors. Sorry if MY way of being gay and dealing with it doesn't suit your interests, but it is what it is and not you, not that other poster, NOT ANYONE, has a right to tell me I hate myself because of what I believe in. You're just as narrow-minded and selfish as the conservatives you like to criticize.
No, sorry. There's nothing stinging. And that's not a mirror he's holding up to me, either. He's basically telling me that I "hate" myself. That's a very strong word to use towards someone you don't know at all.
In case you haven't read my other posts: there is NOTHING wrong with being gay and disagreeing with certain aspects of homosexuality and the lifestyle attached to it, or what the media says and does in our "favor".
I'm sorry, dude, but this is not a case of 'crap or get off the pot'. We, as a gay community, are nothing more than a blend of a million different tastes and flavors. Sorry if MY way of being gay and dealing with it doesn't suit your interests, but it is what it is and not you, not that other poster, NOT ANYONE, has a right to tell me I hate myself because of what I believe in. You're just as narrow-minded and selfish as the conservatives you like to criticize.
jessica.
Apr 15, 09:56 AM
With that said, however, I'm not super excited by these campaigns that seem to be sprouting, left and right, that, more or less, encourage people to be gay/lesbian/whatever. At the end of the day that's basically the underlying message in all these videos: "Go ahead, by gay. It's perfectly fine."
I don't see how these videos "encourage" anyone to be gay. Do you really believe that 100 of these videos could possibly "encourage" anyone to just suddenly be gay?
Oh Apple has gay employees, they made a great video ... they sent a great message, I'm now going to be gay!
Sorry, I just don't see it. I think messages like this should be heard. Like it or leave it, gay people exist and they look like you and me.
I don't see how these videos "encourage" anyone to be gay. Do you really believe that 100 of these videos could possibly "encourage" anyone to just suddenly be gay?
Oh Apple has gay employees, they made a great video ... they sent a great message, I'm now going to be gay!
Sorry, I just don't see it. I think messages like this should be heard. Like it or leave it, gay people exist and they look like you and me.
miniroll32
Apr 13, 03:39 AM
Is it any coincidence that the "so-called" Pros in this discussion (who have probably never even used FCP) are complaining about the Interface simply because it looks like iMovie, and so therefore must be "cheap/un-professional"? Its laughable! I'm sure these individuals don't even understand half the new features on offer which, of course, have been long waited.
My argument is simple - Unless you use this software on a regular basis, don't judge a book by its cover. Its no different to Logic Pro 8, for which I recall members were slamming because it had "no new big features", despite the fact it did.
My argument is simple - Unless you use this software on a regular basis, don't judge a book by its cover. Its no different to Logic Pro 8, for which I recall members were slamming because it had "no new big features", despite the fact it did.
happydude
Oct 7, 02:24 PM
Of course Android might surpass the iPhone. The iPhone is limited to 1 device whereas the Android is spanned over many more devices and will continue to branch out.
takao
Mar 14, 07:44 PM
according to tepco a 8000+ microsievert 8mSV+) value of radiation has been measured on the power plant grounds
yearly average dosage 2.4mSV
and while the values have since then dropped again to lower levels the situation has become more serious than before
yearly average dosage 2.4mSV
and while the values have since then dropped again to lower levels the situation has become more serious than before
Silentwave
Sep 25, 11:41 PM
I'd pay for them to try and do a low voltage Clovertown like they did Woodcrest with the 5148LV. That one had a TDP not far off of Merom.
LagunaSol
Apr 21, 07:24 PM
Maybe I don't represent the majority of the population, but it always annoys me when people perpetuate this thinking that Windows is so virus filled.
Hence the robust market for Windows anti-virus software?
(As for malware vs. virus, to the consumer it doesn't matter. Both suck.)
Hence the robust market for Windows anti-virus software?
(As for malware vs. virus, to the consumer it doesn't matter. Both suck.)
Glen Quagmire
Jul 12, 06:22 AM
Where's the "Mac OS Rumors" option? (http://macosrumors.com/20060710B1.php)
They are still labouring under the illusion that Woodcrest will be quad core. A cursory glance at Intel's literature or on the web will reveal that Woody is a dual-core beast, nothing more.
(Disclaimer: I read MOR for entertainment, not for real news.)
Anyway, I'll take a 2.67Ghz (or more) dual-dual Mac Pro, please. In black.
They are still labouring under the illusion that Woodcrest will be quad core. A cursory glance at Intel's literature or on the web will reveal that Woody is a dual-core beast, nothing more.
(Disclaimer: I read MOR for entertainment, not for real news.)
Anyway, I'll take a 2.67Ghz (or more) dual-dual Mac Pro, please. In black.
No comments:
Post a Comment