superleccy
Sep 20, 05:55 AM
I know of at least one company (http://www.itv.com/) in the UK who won't be too happy if they keep that name.
<UK>Indeed. EyeTV and ITV was confusing enough, but now we have iTV too. And I don't think I'll be watching Coronation street on iTV if Apple are going to charge �1.99 an episode. Think again Steve.</UK>
<Everyone Else>ITV is the name of the UK's biggest terrestrial commercial TV network</Everyone Else>
<UK>Indeed. EyeTV and ITV was confusing enough, but now we have iTV too. And I don't think I'll be watching Coronation street on iTV if Apple are going to charge �1.99 an episode. Think again Steve.</UK>
<Everyone Else>ITV is the name of the UK's biggest terrestrial commercial TV network</Everyone Else>
capvideo
Mar 20, 01:32 PM
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
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.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
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.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
chrono1081
Apr 20, 09:31 PM
I honestly have no idea how you have the job that you do, because you fail tremendously in this aspect.
I have the job that I do because I know MUCH more about Windows than you do obviously. If you think what I posted above is a bunch of fud then you really don't know anything about Windows OS or manual malware removal. There is all kinds of ways malware can hide and on Windows many times the only way you know its on the system is by finding altered registry keys, but removing the key doesn't remove the malware so you have to manually dig for files. Most of the time you can find them by looking but some malware uses the feature to hide folders completely even if you tell the system to show all files. If you want a prime example of a virus that does this look up and infect your system with Oboma (yes its spelled incorrectly). It went around our workplace all the time and most of the time it used the file hiding technique mentioned above. Another is WD32Silly (or something close to that). Thats another one that always did it. With over 6,000 users to support I see this stuff all the time.
EDIT: This is why tools that access files outside the OS are popular, like BartPE and various other packages. You can see these files if Windows is not booted up and your not plugging the drive into another machine.
Why do they allow the files to be hidden?
Of course if you used Norton you wouldn't have this problem. :D:D:D
Actually....we use Symantec which is the the first scanner we use which doesn't find anything ;) Or, to its credit it will find something, but not remove it (hence how we find out the names half of the time). Honestly though you really want multi-layered scanning. If the program on the computer doesn't catch anything it goes to IT and we scan it with other tools, as a last resort we will manually remove it but if it doesn't work or ends up being to "messy" the machine gets re-imaged.
I have the job that I do because I know MUCH more about Windows than you do obviously. If you think what I posted above is a bunch of fud then you really don't know anything about Windows OS or manual malware removal. There is all kinds of ways malware can hide and on Windows many times the only way you know its on the system is by finding altered registry keys, but removing the key doesn't remove the malware so you have to manually dig for files. Most of the time you can find them by looking but some malware uses the feature to hide folders completely even if you tell the system to show all files. If you want a prime example of a virus that does this look up and infect your system with Oboma (yes its spelled incorrectly). It went around our workplace all the time and most of the time it used the file hiding technique mentioned above. Another is WD32Silly (or something close to that). Thats another one that always did it. With over 6,000 users to support I see this stuff all the time.
EDIT: This is why tools that access files outside the OS are popular, like BartPE and various other packages. You can see these files if Windows is not booted up and your not plugging the drive into another machine.
Why do they allow the files to be hidden?
Of course if you used Norton you wouldn't have this problem. :D:D:D
Actually....we use Symantec which is the the first scanner we use which doesn't find anything ;) Or, to its credit it will find something, but not remove it (hence how we find out the names half of the time). Honestly though you really want multi-layered scanning. If the program on the computer doesn't catch anything it goes to IT and we scan it with other tools, as a last resort we will manually remove it but if it doesn't work or ends up being to "messy" the machine gets re-imaged.
dscuber9000
Mar 24, 06:46 PM
When your moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature are bigoted and wrong, yes, we will attack you. Get used to it because that is the direction the world is moving, like it or not.
Stella
Mar 18, 10:00 AM
This is beyond the mark...
Wish he'd do something useful like cracking WMA.
Wish he'd do something useful like cracking WMA.
archipellago
May 2, 04:56 PM
Sure it can, but it's the percentage and the variables of these "bad" incidents that are key as you are generalizing without specifics.
How about unbiased studies, and percentages of viruses and malware between the two? Those would be facts (again, from an impartial party/experiment).
Also, you're on a Mac based website, so of course there are OS X defenders. Go to Engadget, et al if you don't wish to be here, you're free to decide :)
Its hard to link to conversations.....
Studies on malware are pointless, there is so little effort being put into writing OSX malware, no ROI.
to be honest I didn't think it was a still a live argument (Mac OSX security myths) it certainly isn't in my circles.
How about unbiased studies, and percentages of viruses and malware between the two? Those would be facts (again, from an impartial party/experiment).
Also, you're on a Mac based website, so of course there are OS X defenders. Go to Engadget, et al if you don't wish to be here, you're free to decide :)
Its hard to link to conversations.....
Studies on malware are pointless, there is so little effort being put into writing OSX malware, no ROI.
to be honest I didn't think it was a still a live argument (Mac OSX security myths) it certainly isn't in my circles.
janstett
Sep 12, 05:46 PM
Ah, now this is what I've been waiting for: the Airport Express for video, plus a little bit more. If it were shipping today, I'd high-tail it to the Apple Store and buy one. But given a few months to think about the $299 price tag, we shall see if that feeling holds up.
These types of devices have existed for years (UPnP Digital Media Adapters). I wonder if this will be UPnP compatible, probably not -- Rendevous pretty much a UPnP alternative.
These types of devices have existed for years (UPnP Digital Media Adapters). I wonder if this will be UPnP compatible, probably not -- Rendevous pretty much a UPnP alternative.
Shasterball
May 5, 10:45 AM
Eh, who needs voice? Who uses their phone as a "phone" anyway? ;)
teasphere
Apr 13, 09:22 AM
The product looks good for what it is, and I read most of the comments here... while I'm not a video guy I am an artist and IT professional and I do have to agree that Apple is strangely moving away from the core pro market that was very loyal. I have seen more and more artists move back to PCs lately and even though I have been moving the other direction, I can't fully blame them.
I know Apple has a plan and they stick to their guns, but I just think they may be shooting themselves in the foot by going so fully consumer market. Avid has a lot more as far as hardcore features and scalability. Apple has basically dropped their server line and they are on a path of dumbing down many apps to fit a more iPad/App market. They are still powerful and "pro" apps but much of the scalability and truly "pro" features seem to be dwindling day by day. That's my concern.
I know Apple has a plan and they stick to their guns, but I just think they may be shooting themselves in the foot by going so fully consumer market. Avid has a lot more as far as hardcore features and scalability. Apple has basically dropped their server line and they are on a path of dumbing down many apps to fit a more iPad/App market. They are still powerful and "pro" apps but much of the scalability and truly "pro" features seem to be dwindling day by day. That's my concern.
winmacguy
Mar 18, 02:17 PM
It's a great convenience until the RIAA gets pissed and either changes their mind about downloadable music or tells Apple to hike their prices.
We shouldn't worry though, Apple will defeat this in no time.
Maybe some big company should tell the greedy money grubbing RIAA to "go jump in the Lake" and just leave things how they are instead of trying to change Apples DRM and create even more restrictions to what you can do with legally purchased music. Maybe if the greedy money grubbing RIAA looked at changeing its business model to bring it inline with the newer digital age it might find some better way of doing things. After all there is NO evidence that file sharing kills music and CD sales.
What the evidence actually tells us is file sharers are downloading singles which the music industry doesnt cater for so they get the impression that they are losing sales.
Hmmmm methinks that maybe the RIAA needs to adjust its buiness model to meet the changing music environment rather than change the business environment to keep with its outdated business model.
Cheers Winmacguy
PS I was aware as mentioned in the article that in Apple's case you still have to purchase the music before you can strip the DRM from it unlike Napsters music which you onliy have to pay $15 for as much as you can eat!
We shouldn't worry though, Apple will defeat this in no time.
Maybe some big company should tell the greedy money grubbing RIAA to "go jump in the Lake" and just leave things how they are instead of trying to change Apples DRM and create even more restrictions to what you can do with legally purchased music. Maybe if the greedy money grubbing RIAA looked at changeing its business model to bring it inline with the newer digital age it might find some better way of doing things. After all there is NO evidence that file sharing kills music and CD sales.
What the evidence actually tells us is file sharers are downloading singles which the music industry doesnt cater for so they get the impression that they are losing sales.
Hmmmm methinks that maybe the RIAA needs to adjust its buiness model to meet the changing music environment rather than change the business environment to keep with its outdated business model.
Cheers Winmacguy
PS I was aware as mentioned in the article that in Apple's case you still have to purchase the music before you can strip the DRM from it unlike Napsters music which you onliy have to pay $15 for as much as you can eat!
puma1552
Mar 15, 10:10 AM
Am I hearing the expert om TV right? He's saying the seawater being pumped in is just *around* the core container to stop it from overheating and melting. It's not actually *into* the core to cool it down.
So basically these fire engines are just pumping water onto the outside of a red hot oven to keep it from melting while the oven still burns brightly.
Do you have the slightest inkling of the what the process of heat transfer is or what a heat transfer coefficient is? Do you have an inkling of what a heat exchanger is, or how this process is similar?
Do you think the reactor is a jar of cookies with a lid you can just pop open and stick a hose down?
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Any idea why the boron is being added?
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Our assurances are getting hammered by new events? Last I checked there wasn't a disaster or catastrophe. I woudn't say anyone's been getting "hammered".
Oh lord, you think 9/11 was a hoax too, right?
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent.
Might need an extra layer of tinfoil on that hat of yours.
leaving the nuclear situation discussion aside for now: interestingly even a town which actually had very expensive tsunami protection wall was hit since it simply wasn't nowhere high enough
the most important point now will be to get the infrastracture running again because those fuel/electricity/food shortages are now turning to be really problematic
Tsunami wall, where'd you read that? There are literally trillions of TONS of force behind a tsunami, who would try to build a lousy wall to combat that? Are you sure they weren't mistaking a levy for a "tsunami wall"?
2 years exposure a day = 730 years worth of normal background exposure per annum. That's okay then, not as bad as I first calculated. No breast cancer there. Bring the pregnant women in. I'll drink milk from that cow, eat eggs from them chickens. We all get that flying a plane. Not.
You're really being out of line.
Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do.
No, of course he didn't. If he tried to, he surely didn't understand it.
I have no idea why these sorts of examples are constantly used to allay peoples' concerns. Do you actually believe people actually think getting an xray is as harmless as washing with soap? We all see the technician/dentist/nurse go stand behind the protective screens when they use these things while telling us "it's fine, won't hurt you" and we all think "horse manure it won't" as the machine goes click click..
I think you're a very paranoid individual, it may be prudent to put on that tinfoil hat and wait this one out in the cupboard while the engineers of the world solve this one.
What do you mean *if* we have a meltdown. Are you denying there has been a meltdown at all? I'll wager with you that there is not only just a meltdown, but actually *three* active meltdowns currently in progress right now.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it.
wtf? x wtf? does not equal wtf^2. :rolleyes:
I'm guessing you also don't understand that a meltdown is not synonymous with catastrophe. You do realize you can have a partial--or even an entire meltdown--while doing zero damage to the environment or any people, right? After all, you said it yourself--we may be having a partial meltdown right now, but nobody's dying.
Even allowing for the possibility of a complete core meltdown (an unlikely event given the current situation, though not impossible), the structures were designed to contain such an event.
Exactly. There are numerous layers between the fuel and the atmosphere, so even if a couple layers become compromised, you can still avoid a catastrophe.
The problem with your attempts to downplay this situation, like all the other attempts in this thread so far, is that every time you get hammered by actual events on the ground.
And you've been getting hammered by every single iota of science and fact and physics thrown your way, and have addressed literally zero of them, just citing "big governments lie, run for the hills! JEDILEVEL13PURPLEWIZARDROBESPELLCAST!!! I haven't seen you try to take down any of the nuclear experts posted, or address a single bit of science, all you do is spit the same rhetoric, that we are all getting "hammered" by the thus-far lack of disaster/death/catastrophe that you are running for the hills from.
So rather than fear-mongering appearing to be unwarranted, it's actually the other way around. The fear-mongers have yet to be proved wrong while the down-players' positive predictions have been proved wrong every step of the way.
You've yet to be proven wrong? Really? And we've been proven wrong on every count about how there is not a disaster and likely won't be a disaster, and certainly won't be a Chernobyl or anything remotely like it?
All workers not drectly involved in the actual pumping have now been evacuated from Fukushima nuclear plant. They're running. So everybody else should too.
We call those safety protocols. Familiar with ISO 14001 or ISO 9001? The people are running? Looks to me like they showed up to work like any other day and were told to leave. I certainly didn't see anyone running out of the plant on NHK TV today. I saw a bunch of people walking out like they would any other day.
I don't even know why I waste my time.
So basically these fire engines are just pumping water onto the outside of a red hot oven to keep it from melting while the oven still burns brightly.
Do you have the slightest inkling of the what the process of heat transfer is or what a heat transfer coefficient is? Do you have an inkling of what a heat exchanger is, or how this process is similar?
Do you think the reactor is a jar of cookies with a lid you can just pop open and stick a hose down?
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Any idea why the boron is being added?
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Our assurances are getting hammered by new events? Last I checked there wasn't a disaster or catastrophe. I woudn't say anyone's been getting "hammered".
Oh lord, you think 9/11 was a hoax too, right?
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent.
Might need an extra layer of tinfoil on that hat of yours.
leaving the nuclear situation discussion aside for now: interestingly even a town which actually had very expensive tsunami protection wall was hit since it simply wasn't nowhere high enough
the most important point now will be to get the infrastracture running again because those fuel/electricity/food shortages are now turning to be really problematic
Tsunami wall, where'd you read that? There are literally trillions of TONS of force behind a tsunami, who would try to build a lousy wall to combat that? Are you sure they weren't mistaking a levy for a "tsunami wall"?
2 years exposure a day = 730 years worth of normal background exposure per annum. That's okay then, not as bad as I first calculated. No breast cancer there. Bring the pregnant women in. I'll drink milk from that cow, eat eggs from them chickens. We all get that flying a plane. Not.
You're really being out of line.
Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do.
No, of course he didn't. If he tried to, he surely didn't understand it.
I have no idea why these sorts of examples are constantly used to allay peoples' concerns. Do you actually believe people actually think getting an xray is as harmless as washing with soap? We all see the technician/dentist/nurse go stand behind the protective screens when they use these things while telling us "it's fine, won't hurt you" and we all think "horse manure it won't" as the machine goes click click..
I think you're a very paranoid individual, it may be prudent to put on that tinfoil hat and wait this one out in the cupboard while the engineers of the world solve this one.
What do you mean *if* we have a meltdown. Are you denying there has been a meltdown at all? I'll wager with you that there is not only just a meltdown, but actually *three* active meltdowns currently in progress right now.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it.
wtf? x wtf? does not equal wtf^2. :rolleyes:
I'm guessing you also don't understand that a meltdown is not synonymous with catastrophe. You do realize you can have a partial--or even an entire meltdown--while doing zero damage to the environment or any people, right? After all, you said it yourself--we may be having a partial meltdown right now, but nobody's dying.
Even allowing for the possibility of a complete core meltdown (an unlikely event given the current situation, though not impossible), the structures were designed to contain such an event.
Exactly. There are numerous layers between the fuel and the atmosphere, so even if a couple layers become compromised, you can still avoid a catastrophe.
The problem with your attempts to downplay this situation, like all the other attempts in this thread so far, is that every time you get hammered by actual events on the ground.
And you've been getting hammered by every single iota of science and fact and physics thrown your way, and have addressed literally zero of them, just citing "big governments lie, run for the hills! JEDILEVEL13PURPLEWIZARDROBESPELLCAST!!! I haven't seen you try to take down any of the nuclear experts posted, or address a single bit of science, all you do is spit the same rhetoric, that we are all getting "hammered" by the thus-far lack of disaster/death/catastrophe that you are running for the hills from.
So rather than fear-mongering appearing to be unwarranted, it's actually the other way around. The fear-mongers have yet to be proved wrong while the down-players' positive predictions have been proved wrong every step of the way.
You've yet to be proven wrong? Really? And we've been proven wrong on every count about how there is not a disaster and likely won't be a disaster, and certainly won't be a Chernobyl or anything remotely like it?
All workers not drectly involved in the actual pumping have now been evacuated from Fukushima nuclear plant. They're running. So everybody else should too.
We call those safety protocols. Familiar with ISO 14001 or ISO 9001? The people are running? Looks to me like they showed up to work like any other day and were told to leave. I certainly didn't see anyone running out of the plant on NHK TV today. I saw a bunch of people walking out like they would any other day.
I don't even know why I waste my time.
skunk
Mar 14, 06:55 PM
@skunk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC_Inter-IslandVery interesting. Thanks. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC_Inter-IslandVery interesting. Thanks. :)
nagromme
Mar 18, 12:54 PM
Anyway, I've never been one to agree with the Windows people that argue the security-by-obscurity for why Mac OS X is not hacked to bits like Windows, but it would seem that this adds aome serious fire to their arguement.
Obscurity IS a factor that helps Mac users. The point is that good, secure design is ALSO a factor. But DRM file distribution doesn't relate to OS security/privacy anyway.
Anyway... you still have to BUY the song to use this hack.
Obscurity IS a factor that helps Mac users. The point is that good, secure design is ALSO a factor. But DRM file distribution doesn't relate to OS security/privacy anyway.
Anyway... you still have to BUY the song to use this hack.
Howdr
Mar 18, 08:26 AM
I'm happy to see some of the responsible replies here. I also say bravo to AT&T. It seems like whenever a thread like this comes up, it brings out the MacRumors den of thieves who like to circumvent data plans and steal data that the rest of us our paying for.
I like the teathering plan and don't mind paying for it. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't have subscribed. Simple as that. Nobody is twisting my arm.
I will agree that AT&T is taking us to the cleaners. It sucks, but I either don't give them my money or suck it up. We all make choices. Mine is simply that I won't steal to get what I want.
I'm not a thief, I use my data responsible.
Its appalling that your so righteous to post such.
I have an unlimited plan, $30 a month, I use tether for a few things but do not go over 5gb a month, I have unlimited so it shouldn't matter, but I use much less then the one poster who claims 90gb a month to download movies.
Yes I think thats abuse.
I think anything over 10 to 20gb would be pure abuse.
but occasional tethering and under that 10gb abuse? No way.
I need to calm down because it bothers me that people are so brainwashed these days to accept what ever a company does.
It's just crap. No matter what a Contract says it can be challenged in court and we could be right and At&t wrong.
I like the teathering plan and don't mind paying for it. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't have subscribed. Simple as that. Nobody is twisting my arm.
I will agree that AT&T is taking us to the cleaners. It sucks, but I either don't give them my money or suck it up. We all make choices. Mine is simply that I won't steal to get what I want.
I'm not a thief, I use my data responsible.
Its appalling that your so righteous to post such.
I have an unlimited plan, $30 a month, I use tether for a few things but do not go over 5gb a month, I have unlimited so it shouldn't matter, but I use much less then the one poster who claims 90gb a month to download movies.
Yes I think thats abuse.
I think anything over 10 to 20gb would be pure abuse.
but occasional tethering and under that 10gb abuse? No way.
I need to calm down because it bothers me that people are so brainwashed these days to accept what ever a company does.
It's just crap. No matter what a Contract says it can be challenged in court and we could be right and At&t wrong.
xStep
Apr 13, 03:40 AM
You can find some (not great) video of the event here: http://www.youtube.com/user/selfsponsored05
ArizonaKid
Aug 29, 11:08 AM
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?
Apple does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?
As a business professional, there most certainly is a capitalistic argument for environmentally friendly businesses.
I will provide the link this time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
This is something Apple can improve. So why not go for it?
Apple does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?
As a business professional, there most certainly is a capitalistic argument for environmentally friendly businesses.
I will provide the link this time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
This is something Apple can improve. So why not go for it?
KingYaba
Aug 29, 05:30 PM
GreenPeace's new agenda: Save the iPods :rolleyes:
sinsin07
Apr 8, 11:57 PM
These people are fleeing the "yellow light of death” on PS3 or "red ring of death' on 360. The consoles are so poorly made that broken PS3's seldomly fetch $50 on eBay.
Chris Paul, Dwyane Wade,
AppliedVisual
Oct 26, 03:46 PM
You won't see a Clovertown Mac Pro until after Adobe announces the ship date for CS3. The reasons are simple -- a) most would-be Mac Pro purchasers are holding off until the native version of Creative Suite; and b) marketing-wise changing from a dual dual 3 GHz high end to a dual quad 2.66 GHz high end would be seen as a downgrade.
There's a whole lot more in this world than CS3 and thousands of buyers who will gladly jump onto the 8-core bandwagon even if CS3 never arrives. Every decent 3D graphics package out there will benefit from having 8 cores as will many simulation and visualizations softwares, scientific applications, video applications. Honestly, the only application in CS3 that really needs multi-core support is Photoshop and like any individual piece of software, it's just that, a piece... A tool used along with several others to complete a task. Apple has nothing to lose and everything to gain by adding 8-core CPU options to their configuration page. And they will do so as soon as the processors are sufficeintly available to meet their perceived demand.
There's a whole lot more in this world than CS3 and thousands of buyers who will gladly jump onto the 8-core bandwagon even if CS3 never arrives. Every decent 3D graphics package out there will benefit from having 8 cores as will many simulation and visualizations softwares, scientific applications, video applications. Honestly, the only application in CS3 that really needs multi-core support is Photoshop and like any individual piece of software, it's just that, a piece... A tool used along with several others to complete a task. Apple has nothing to lose and everything to gain by adding 8-core CPU options to their configuration page. And they will do so as soon as the processors are sufficeintly available to meet their perceived demand.
Trishul
Oct 30, 08:59 PM
I don't want to seem judgemental, but the last thing I ever plan on doing is selling my G5 Quad. I mean like I will have my G5 Quad until I DIE. Why would you do that? It runs classic. It runs Adobe native. It is pretty fast for email and word processing. ;) And it runs dead silent. It's the perfect backup for when the Mac Pro goes down. At the very least it makes for a great HDTV player and recorder with EyeTV 500 or Hybrid attached.
What was your reasoning?
And what's up with you not knowing the 8-core was coming? This is very old news. Some of us have known since early this year. :confused: :eek:
i wish i could have kept the Quad for some of those reasons mentioned, but it's purely down to financial reasons, i simply wouldn't be able to afford keeping both. I'm a film-maker just starting out, so i'm not getting a very steady income that is related to work done with a computer to be able to justify such expenditures etc.. firstly i got a decent price for my quad, i wouldn't have sold otherwise, it'll only be a few hundered pounds for me to upgrade to a mac pro, but i sold partially because i'm one of those who likes the newest etc.. but main actual reasons are
1) I mainly use HDV with Final Cut Studio, so the performance bump would be very useful for me, obviously more of a luxury, FCP worked fine on the quad, but anything better is worth it. 2) I use adobe but any of the few deadlines i have don't really rely on the use of adobe software, but i know in a few months the use of adobe stuff will be much more important to me and i'll have to buy a license, CS3 will probably be out by then as well as other Universal Binary converts, and i imagine the Quad will only be worth having for people needing a backup machine, the value of it will drop like anything, no?? rather sell now while the value of it is still fairly high, and especially because they are out of stock everywhere. 3) I get a windows capable machine that is powerful enough to let me use some software i wouldn't have been able to use before on my 2.4ghz, 1gb PC, as well as run games properly on my 30". Buying a seperate similar specced Windows PC wouldn't be worth it for me, but the situation with bootcamp is just perfect for my needs.
If i was running a steady business, no way would i have sold the Quad, but i'd rather sell now while i can afford to be sans mac, rather than down the line when i know the mac pro will be extremely sought after and get bottom dollar for the quad.
oh i knew the 8-core was coming out, i just didn't know it would be this soon, i've only recently started getting into the 'underground' gossip of macs, and i don't know where i got the idea from but i thought the octo would be around Q1/2 of next year, and i would just have just done the upgrade myself if it warranted it. Anyway i was able to finish all my work this weekend before i shipped it today, so in a strange way i have a sort of holiday thanks to this news, though as a recent mac convert i can't believe i used to live like this, already missing her. :(
What was your reasoning?
And what's up with you not knowing the 8-core was coming? This is very old news. Some of us have known since early this year. :confused: :eek:
i wish i could have kept the Quad for some of those reasons mentioned, but it's purely down to financial reasons, i simply wouldn't be able to afford keeping both. I'm a film-maker just starting out, so i'm not getting a very steady income that is related to work done with a computer to be able to justify such expenditures etc.. firstly i got a decent price for my quad, i wouldn't have sold otherwise, it'll only be a few hundered pounds for me to upgrade to a mac pro, but i sold partially because i'm one of those who likes the newest etc.. but main actual reasons are
1) I mainly use HDV with Final Cut Studio, so the performance bump would be very useful for me, obviously more of a luxury, FCP worked fine on the quad, but anything better is worth it. 2) I use adobe but any of the few deadlines i have don't really rely on the use of adobe software, but i know in a few months the use of adobe stuff will be much more important to me and i'll have to buy a license, CS3 will probably be out by then as well as other Universal Binary converts, and i imagine the Quad will only be worth having for people needing a backup machine, the value of it will drop like anything, no?? rather sell now while the value of it is still fairly high, and especially because they are out of stock everywhere. 3) I get a windows capable machine that is powerful enough to let me use some software i wouldn't have been able to use before on my 2.4ghz, 1gb PC, as well as run games properly on my 30". Buying a seperate similar specced Windows PC wouldn't be worth it for me, but the situation with bootcamp is just perfect for my needs.
If i was running a steady business, no way would i have sold the Quad, but i'd rather sell now while i can afford to be sans mac, rather than down the line when i know the mac pro will be extremely sought after and get bottom dollar for the quad.
oh i knew the 8-core was coming out, i just didn't know it would be this soon, i've only recently started getting into the 'underground' gossip of macs, and i don't know where i got the idea from but i thought the octo would be around Q1/2 of next year, and i would just have just done the upgrade myself if it warranted it. Anyway i was able to finish all my work this weekend before i shipped it today, so in a strange way i have a sort of holiday thanks to this news, though as a recent mac convert i can't believe i used to live like this, already missing her. :(
dmelgar
Sep 12, 07:31 PM
Sounded like a downer to me. I haven't seen the presentation, so maybe its better than the story sounds.
- Whatever happened to a Tivo killer? No TV? No DVR?
- Sounds like this doesn't have a hard drive, supposed to display on a TV a video bitstream received via network connection. There are already many devices out there that do this, starting at $99. What makes this any better? Big problem with those so far is that you need an excellent 802.11g connection or you get dropouts when playing a DVD. Ethernet is the only thing that makes it reliable.
- 1Q2007? Since when does Apple pre-announce. They've been working on this for over a year and 1Q2007 is the best they can do? I wonder what the holdup is. Missing the Christmas shopping season? Horrors!
- Movies on iTunes. What DRM is associated with the movies? Can you burn the movie to a DVD to play in a DVD player? How do the prices compare to buying a DVD. If its similar price, I get much more on a DVD, ie special features, can play anywhere.
- No rental? Why not. I'm much more likely to rent a movie than buy one. I'm more likely to value the convenience of renting quickly online vs. driving to a store. But to buy and keep forever, I'd rather get a DVD.
- What movies? Only from Disney? Doesn't sound very impressive. What would make other studios jump on the bandwagon? I thought Apple would come up with something revolutionary that would drag the studios in. But I don't see it yet.
- Whatever happened to a Tivo killer? No TV? No DVR?
- Sounds like this doesn't have a hard drive, supposed to display on a TV a video bitstream received via network connection. There are already many devices out there that do this, starting at $99. What makes this any better? Big problem with those so far is that you need an excellent 802.11g connection or you get dropouts when playing a DVD. Ethernet is the only thing that makes it reliable.
- 1Q2007? Since when does Apple pre-announce. They've been working on this for over a year and 1Q2007 is the best they can do? I wonder what the holdup is. Missing the Christmas shopping season? Horrors!
- Movies on iTunes. What DRM is associated with the movies? Can you burn the movie to a DVD to play in a DVD player? How do the prices compare to buying a DVD. If its similar price, I get much more on a DVD, ie special features, can play anywhere.
- No rental? Why not. I'm much more likely to rent a movie than buy one. I'm more likely to value the convenience of renting quickly online vs. driving to a store. But to buy and keep forever, I'd rather get a DVD.
- What movies? Only from Disney? Doesn't sound very impressive. What would make other studios jump on the bandwagon? I thought Apple would come up with something revolutionary that would drag the studios in. But I don't see it yet.
Benjy91
Mar 25, 11:08 AM
I am a firm believer in that you are entitled to your own opinion, as long as you dont force your opinion on others.
So someone doesnt like the idea of gay relationships, attacking him for this isnt going to change his opinion. And just makes you a cretin.
So someone doesnt like the idea of gay relationships, attacking him for this isnt going to change his opinion. And just makes you a cretin.
spicyapple
Oct 25, 10:29 PM
seems unlikely that Clovertown would replace the current Mac Pros... just add another high end config.
It would be the first for Apple. :cool:
It would be the first for Apple. :cool:
Don't panic
Mar 14, 04:02 PM
there were actually three redundant cooling systems, but they all failed.
in honesty i think it's unfair to claim that they were unprepared, or that there were maintenance safety protocol issues.
what they went through was unprecedented, and beyond the worst case scenarios they were designed for, so if the accident is fully contained (which unfortunately seems less likely as time goes by) the whole system should be commended.
of course, this all should be a pricey lesson to e learned from, but it could have been a lot worse. a lot.
Also, i was actually positively surprised by how direct and candid the japanese gov has been, after a bit of stonewalling at the beginning. not sure the same would have happened elsewhere.
in honesty i think it's unfair to claim that they were unprepared, or that there were maintenance safety protocol issues.
what they went through was unprecedented, and beyond the worst case scenarios they were designed for, so if the accident is fully contained (which unfortunately seems less likely as time goes by) the whole system should be commended.
of course, this all should be a pricey lesson to e learned from, but it could have been a lot worse. a lot.
Also, i was actually positively surprised by how direct and candid the japanese gov has been, after a bit of stonewalling at the beginning. not sure the same would have happened elsewhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment