jdsam
Apr 12, 10:33 PM
So, I'm psyched to see an update to FCP, but what happens to Final Cut Studio. Is all the functionality of the other apps bundled into FCPx? I could see apple dropping DVD studio pro and bundle in the functionality of color, but who am I to say. I'm just wondering what is happening.
thoughts?
Also... they didn't mention any I/O stuff like thunderbolt. Thunderbolt seems to be the rage for all the hardware makers right now. I feel like a thunderbolt mac pro would be logical right now, but I don't know what is going on in the world of work station processors right now though. And, if they are going to have a thunderbolt mac pro a display with thunderbolt I/O seems equally logical.
thoughts?
Also... they didn't mention any I/O stuff like thunderbolt. Thunderbolt seems to be the rage for all the hardware makers right now. I feel like a thunderbolt mac pro would be logical right now, but I don't know what is going on in the world of work station processors right now though. And, if they are going to have a thunderbolt mac pro a display with thunderbolt I/O seems equally logical.
r1ch4rd
Apr 23, 05:09 PM
I know a few, they are surgeons and oncologists.
Just ask their patients. ;)
I'm glad my doctor isn't omniscient... she might not approve! :)
Just ask their patients. ;)
I'm glad my doctor isn't omniscient... she might not approve! :)
drevvin
May 18, 11:38 AM
drevvin: I don't know where you get your "facts" from, but this is utter B.S. according to everything my friends and I have experienced.
Other carriers are going to have just as much "network congestion" with the other smartphones they're starting to put on their systems (Android based platforms with "true web browsers", etc.). So if your statement was accurate, we'd see a surge of complaints from Verizon customers, since they got the HTC Hero and Incredible phones. We don't....
Furthermore, the dropped call issue has LONG been an issue for AT&T, no matter which phone you use with them! One of my friends had a Razr and a Blackjack phone on AT&T, and got an iPhone after that. He had the same number of call drops with any of the 3 phones while he was with them -- usually in the same places where their signal was inadequate.
Words like "horrible" are relative... What one person considers horrible, someone else will consider acceptable. But I think it's clear that AT&T is not one of the "better" providers. I have a laundry list of issues with them, including their latest screw-up ... issuing me a VISA rebate card that's not possible to activate, because they didn't set it up properly. (I'm supposed to enter the last 4 digits of my acct. number as my PIN to activate it by phone or over the web, but it won't accept them!) They're also notorious for screwing up my billing by not sending me a bill one month, and then billing me for 2 consecutive months - if I don't proactively sign into the web and pay them first. They're FAR more expensive than some of their competitors for basic voice service, despite the relatively lousy coverage. And even the rollover minutes are subject to cancellation under all sorts of conditions, including when you decide to go from a more expensive plan to a less expensive one or fail to use them up in a 1 year period of time.
An over-saturation of data usage on a cellular network should cause issues with poor DATA performance, but should have NO bearing on dropped calls on the VOICE side. I'd be relatively ok with occasional poor data performance, because that's of secondary importance to me, really. You can always retry a download or wait a little longer for an email to pull in. But the VOICE side needs to be pretty bulletproof. You can't recover from dropped calls without redialing the phone.... AT&T seems to be playing a lot of games of promising data network improvements in response to people's complaints of VOICE issues, hoping they're ignorant of the way the network works.... (Voice issues are more expensive for them to fix since it usually means new towers have to be put up, vs. possibly just increasing some back-haul bandwidth to an existing tower.)
Ok just to reference your statement about data using seperate channels and what not I guess you are not privy to the technology used in cell towers, congestion is caused as a cell tower can only handle so many requests, DATA or VOICE.....So fyi Data requests can congest and cause problems with voice even on the Un Touched Super Squeeky Clean power known as Verizon's network.....and again it mostly boils down to the lack of experience in Apple's Iphone which I myself use but I understand that if I wanna use a phone just for voice I would not use the Iphone I would go with Motorola or Nokia but because I wanna have a (Phone, Camera, PDA, Mp3 Player, Internet and Email Portal, Game Device,) I use the Iphone and don't complain when my voice suffers at the cost of having the ability to do all that. But thats just me.
Other carriers are going to have just as much "network congestion" with the other smartphones they're starting to put on their systems (Android based platforms with "true web browsers", etc.). So if your statement was accurate, we'd see a surge of complaints from Verizon customers, since they got the HTC Hero and Incredible phones. We don't....
Furthermore, the dropped call issue has LONG been an issue for AT&T, no matter which phone you use with them! One of my friends had a Razr and a Blackjack phone on AT&T, and got an iPhone after that. He had the same number of call drops with any of the 3 phones while he was with them -- usually in the same places where their signal was inadequate.
Words like "horrible" are relative... What one person considers horrible, someone else will consider acceptable. But I think it's clear that AT&T is not one of the "better" providers. I have a laundry list of issues with them, including their latest screw-up ... issuing me a VISA rebate card that's not possible to activate, because they didn't set it up properly. (I'm supposed to enter the last 4 digits of my acct. number as my PIN to activate it by phone or over the web, but it won't accept them!) They're also notorious for screwing up my billing by not sending me a bill one month, and then billing me for 2 consecutive months - if I don't proactively sign into the web and pay them first. They're FAR more expensive than some of their competitors for basic voice service, despite the relatively lousy coverage. And even the rollover minutes are subject to cancellation under all sorts of conditions, including when you decide to go from a more expensive plan to a less expensive one or fail to use them up in a 1 year period of time.
An over-saturation of data usage on a cellular network should cause issues with poor DATA performance, but should have NO bearing on dropped calls on the VOICE side. I'd be relatively ok with occasional poor data performance, because that's of secondary importance to me, really. You can always retry a download or wait a little longer for an email to pull in. But the VOICE side needs to be pretty bulletproof. You can't recover from dropped calls without redialing the phone.... AT&T seems to be playing a lot of games of promising data network improvements in response to people's complaints of VOICE issues, hoping they're ignorant of the way the network works.... (Voice issues are more expensive for them to fix since it usually means new towers have to be put up, vs. possibly just increasing some back-haul bandwidth to an existing tower.)
Ok just to reference your statement about data using seperate channels and what not I guess you are not privy to the technology used in cell towers, congestion is caused as a cell tower can only handle so many requests, DATA or VOICE.....So fyi Data requests can congest and cause problems with voice even on the Un Touched Super Squeeky Clean power known as Verizon's network.....and again it mostly boils down to the lack of experience in Apple's Iphone which I myself use but I understand that if I wanna use a phone just for voice I would not use the Iphone I would go with Motorola or Nokia but because I wanna have a (Phone, Camera, PDA, Mp3 Player, Internet and Email Portal, Game Device,) I use the Iphone and don't complain when my voice suffers at the cost of having the ability to do all that. But thats just me.
jamesbjenkins
May 12, 11:14 AM
The ONLY reason I'm ATT is the iPhone. I get dropped calls all the time, billing issues out the yin-yang, terrible customer service who I can't even understand 75% of the time.......the list goes on.
I know it's not only ATT, but the notion that I have to pay an additional $20/month for SMS when I already pay those *$%&#^%s $30/month for "unlimited" data. WTF about it is unlimited if I can't send text messages (read: data) as part of the package. It's legalized robbery. I wish the other major carriers would follow Sprint's lead of the $69/month truly unlimited plan.
I wish I could do something worse than just leave ATT...like crap in a UPS box and ship it to their home office.
I swear I will leave ATT the very instant the iPhone becomes available on Verizon or Sprint. I'd really prefer Sprint, but Verizon will do.
ATT has been riding the iPhone train for almost 3 years, knowing that people will put up with their crappy service and other misc BS because they want the iPhone bad enough. It just makes me sick. I hope they go bankrupt when they lose the exclusivity on the iPhone. Booooo.
I know it's not only ATT, but the notion that I have to pay an additional $20/month for SMS when I already pay those *$%&#^%s $30/month for "unlimited" data. WTF about it is unlimited if I can't send text messages (read: data) as part of the package. It's legalized robbery. I wish the other major carriers would follow Sprint's lead of the $69/month truly unlimited plan.
I wish I could do something worse than just leave ATT...like crap in a UPS box and ship it to their home office.
I swear I will leave ATT the very instant the iPhone becomes available on Verizon or Sprint. I'd really prefer Sprint, but Verizon will do.
ATT has been riding the iPhone train for almost 3 years, knowing that people will put up with their crappy service and other misc BS because they want the iPhone bad enough. It just makes me sick. I hope they go bankrupt when they lose the exclusivity on the iPhone. Booooo.
supmango
Mar 18, 12:31 PM
There are a dozen and one ways they can use rules/logic engines - they don't need a human eye.
And the timing of this new policy isn't by accident nor has it taken ATT "long enough". It's strategic.
With 4.3 - mobile hotspots are now enabled on their network and there is a clear billing system set up within their infrastructure. Remember - prior to 4.3 - ANY tethering via the iPhone was against TOS.
Now that they have a specific plan they can switch you to and/or illustrate that you have LEGAL ways of tethering - they are in a much better position to win any of these so called "arguments."
It's no accident. They clearly have been poised to take action and waited until everything fell into place with the enabling of hotspots.
I never said anything about it being an accident. I also don't think your argument is "clear" unless you have some kind of internal information that the rest of us don't know about.
If it is really that simple to develop "rules and logic engines" to crack down on tethering, why did it take almost a full year (after introducing tethering) to do it? A logical evaluation of network activity (one that can be done by a computer) works in many cases, but there are always instances where it misses things, or triggers a false alert. AT&T is limited in this regard. I also don't see anything special about the mobile hotspot feature that allows AT&T more access to information that it did not have previously. See the rest of my post.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have
And the timing of this new policy isn't by accident nor has it taken ATT "long enough". It's strategic.
With 4.3 - mobile hotspots are now enabled on their network and there is a clear billing system set up within their infrastructure. Remember - prior to 4.3 - ANY tethering via the iPhone was against TOS.
Now that they have a specific plan they can switch you to and/or illustrate that you have LEGAL ways of tethering - they are in a much better position to win any of these so called "arguments."
It's no accident. They clearly have been poised to take action and waited until everything fell into place with the enabling of hotspots.
I never said anything about it being an accident. I also don't think your argument is "clear" unless you have some kind of internal information that the rest of us don't know about.
If it is really that simple to develop "rules and logic engines" to crack down on tethering, why did it take almost a full year (after introducing tethering) to do it? A logical evaluation of network activity (one that can be done by a computer) works in many cases, but there are always instances where it misses things, or triggers a false alert. AT&T is limited in this regard. I also don't see anything special about the mobile hotspot feature that allows AT&T more access to information that it did not have previously. See the rest of my post.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have
Apple OC
Apr 23, 02:23 AM
The six creative "days" occurred after the creation of the "heavens and the earth." That means the universe (and the earth) was in existence for an indefinite amount of time before the creative days began.
The word translated "day" can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. Genesis 2:4 refers to God creating the "heavens and the earth" in a single day, yet Exodus 20:11 says it took six days to create the "heavens and the earth." By calling light day and darkness night, it's actually showing that only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term "day." When the sun comes up at your house and then goes down, does that equal an entire day, lasting 24 hours? Psalms 90:4 says that a thousand years to man is merely a day to humans. So how can you logically conclude that the term "day" is strictly indicating a 24-hour period?
sounds a little conflicting ... I write it off as jibberish ... I'll stick with science instead
The word translated "day" can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. Genesis 2:4 refers to God creating the "heavens and the earth" in a single day, yet Exodus 20:11 says it took six days to create the "heavens and the earth." By calling light day and darkness night, it's actually showing that only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term "day." When the sun comes up at your house and then goes down, does that equal an entire day, lasting 24 hours? Psalms 90:4 says that a thousand years to man is merely a day to humans. So how can you logically conclude that the term "day" is strictly indicating a 24-hour period?
sounds a little conflicting ... I write it off as jibberish ... I'll stick with science instead
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.
p0intblank
Sep 20, 08:01 AM
So it does include a hard drive? Very nice! I was already planning on purchasing an "iTV", but this just makes it sound that much cooler. :D
Th3Crow
Apr 28, 11:43 PM
Do you think the people you know represent a fair sample group? You don't know anyone who needs Windows for work?
A reasonable question, AppleScruff. Indeed, my sample group includes staff, faculty, and students from different disciplines (including business/commerce, and engineering) at a university who use their Macs for research, graduate work, or lecture preparation; a prominent cardiologist at a large hospital; a financial advisor; professional musicians; and many others.
I am myself using a Mac in a business school seamlessly among my PC-using peers. There is nothing that they can do that I cannot - and many things I can do that they would have a difficult time doing in Windows. In fact, my colleagues have been so impressed that one has already made the switch recently, and another is preparing to switch as well. Those days of "needing to run Windows" for work are behind us.
A reasonable question, AppleScruff. Indeed, my sample group includes staff, faculty, and students from different disciplines (including business/commerce, and engineering) at a university who use their Macs for research, graduate work, or lecture preparation; a prominent cardiologist at a large hospital; a financial advisor; professional musicians; and many others.
I am myself using a Mac in a business school seamlessly among my PC-using peers. There is nothing that they can do that I cannot - and many things I can do that they would have a difficult time doing in Windows. In fact, my colleagues have been so impressed that one has already made the switch recently, and another is preparing to switch as well. Those days of "needing to run Windows" for work are behind us.
dragonsbane
Mar 20, 12:09 AM
It is nice that some folks here feel they know the "law". Look at the world your "law" has created. Look back in history and review what "law" has allowed humans to do to other humans and our planet.
Personally, I stand for moral relativism every day. It is more important to me that individuals make decisions based on what they feel - individually - are right and wrong. I am glad that some here believe blindly following the "law" keeps them safe both morally and in the eyes of our fine government.
But let me ask you this... in your soul (if you believe in such things), do you really believe it is "wrong" to purchase a song off the iTMS without DRM? I am all for breaking the "law" as long as you know the consequences.
As the argument for abortion rights goes; "Against abortion? Don't have one." If you are a Linux sysadmin and do not agree that using this app is "good", then do not use it. And I applaud your efforts to sway people to your logic and world view. But at the end of the day, every person must sleep with themselves and must make up their own minds as to what to do. I am glad that people here care enough to talk about this issue in the hopes of finding where they stand.
But hey, no one should listen to me since I think borders, the military and money should all be abolished ;) They, like DRM, are simply used to divide humans from one another. We need to find ways to come together - not separate. Anything that limits the ability for people to voluntarily come together and create community is bad. DRM is just another example of human frailty and vanity.
Those arguing for the supremacy of "laws" over moral reason simply hide the fact that they are dividing humans from one another. If you choose to abide by a law, do so. But do not confuse your knowledge of what the law states with a morally superior stance. Your morals are good for you and no one else. Hell, 100 years ago your law said women were not smart enough to vote. Heck, in some parts of the world the law still says that.
Personally, I stand for moral relativism every day. It is more important to me that individuals make decisions based on what they feel - individually - are right and wrong. I am glad that some here believe blindly following the "law" keeps them safe both morally and in the eyes of our fine government.
But let me ask you this... in your soul (if you believe in such things), do you really believe it is "wrong" to purchase a song off the iTMS without DRM? I am all for breaking the "law" as long as you know the consequences.
As the argument for abortion rights goes; "Against abortion? Don't have one." If you are a Linux sysadmin and do not agree that using this app is "good", then do not use it. And I applaud your efforts to sway people to your logic and world view. But at the end of the day, every person must sleep with themselves and must make up their own minds as to what to do. I am glad that people here care enough to talk about this issue in the hopes of finding where they stand.
But hey, no one should listen to me since I think borders, the military and money should all be abolished ;) They, like DRM, are simply used to divide humans from one another. We need to find ways to come together - not separate. Anything that limits the ability for people to voluntarily come together and create community is bad. DRM is just another example of human frailty and vanity.
Those arguing for the supremacy of "laws" over moral reason simply hide the fact that they are dividing humans from one another. If you choose to abide by a law, do so. But do not confuse your knowledge of what the law states with a morally superior stance. Your morals are good for you and no one else. Hell, 100 years ago your law said women were not smart enough to vote. Heck, in some parts of the world the law still says that.
LegendKillerUK
Mar 18, 09:22 AM
Please point that out in the contract, know it all.
Guess what, it isn't there.
Go look up the word Unlimited in the dictionary. Internalize and understand it. Come back here when you're done. Then come into a court room. Id like to sit back watch you (as I will eventually be watching AT&T) dance around the clear and concise definition of the word.
I've engaged in long, drawn out discussions with my legal pals about this very issue for several years, and they all agree it would completely impossible for AT&T to get out of court unscathed over this word "Unlimited"
Most of you people don't grasp the significance of the word in this case, which is not at all surprising given the crowd. (young and/or naive).
Most also think that because AT&T includes fine print in a contract, they can enforce it however they wish...which of course is a laughable fantasy to anyone who has sat through the first day of contract law.
y so mad?
I look forward to reading about your success against AT&T in the near future. Based on your immature responses I think we all have our answer on that.
Guess what, it isn't there.
Go look up the word Unlimited in the dictionary. Internalize and understand it. Come back here when you're done. Then come into a court room. Id like to sit back watch you (as I will eventually be watching AT&T) dance around the clear and concise definition of the word.
I've engaged in long, drawn out discussions with my legal pals about this very issue for several years, and they all agree it would completely impossible for AT&T to get out of court unscathed over this word "Unlimited"
Most of you people don't grasp the significance of the word in this case, which is not at all surprising given the crowd. (young and/or naive).
Most also think that because AT&T includes fine print in a contract, they can enforce it however they wish...which of course is a laughable fantasy to anyone who has sat through the first day of contract law.
y so mad?
I look forward to reading about your success against AT&T in the near future. Based on your immature responses I think we all have our answer on that.
OllyW
Apr 23, 02:28 PM
I don't think me being an atheist is connected to my choice of computer. I used Windows for 10 years before I bought my first Mac and I'd considered myself an atheist at least 10 years before I bought my first ever PC.
yg17
Mar 11, 08:53 AM
+1
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
Yes, twat is used over here quite a bit. Wank, not so much though.
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
Yes, twat is used over here quite a bit. Wank, not so much though.
AppliedVisual
Oct 29, 11:30 AM
i wouldnt truly worry about that till it happens. one thing i have learned over the years is that roadmaps never hold up. if they had, we'd all be running dual core 6GHZ G5 or G6 right now, with 10GHZ in production readying themselves for 2007. Intel would have a oentium 5 or something out or their 64 bit itanium with consumes 200W of power. just a year ago, we had laptops with pentium M that wre as fast or faster than pentium 4's. who knows where we'll be in a year or 2 from now. i wont worry about laptop performance until we are behind, not what some roadmap says. years ago clock speed was all the rage, today its multiple cores. what will it be tomorrow? who knows.
Exactly. Roadmaps are just projections based on what current technology and market trends seem to indicate. Back when Intel and AMD were both deadlocked in the MHz race and were pushing to break the 2GHz barrier, we were hearing claims of 4GHz within a year and 10GHz by '07. Well, '07 is almost here and 4GHz is still just a pipedream in most situations and not something we see without overclocking and aftermarket cooling options. The only thing that we can rely on is that both AMD and Intel have become quite reliable when they officially announce a product is in development and production and they are usually good about when it will arrive and what it will do. Often only missing a release by a matter of a few days to a week or two, even though it was announced nearly 8 months or more in advance. But upcoming products on their roadmap mean little. Nehalem may not even happen... There's been several tentative chip products over the years that appear on a roadmap, only to be replaced by something else later. I think at this point, all those future entries on the roadmap mean is that it's something being investigated. There could be a significant breakthrough tomorrow in nanotech that allows for 28um production industry-wide within the next two years and then you can bet that Intel, AMD and IBM will throw their current roadmaps out the window. So it means nada until they officially start development and testing on a new product...
Exactly. Roadmaps are just projections based on what current technology and market trends seem to indicate. Back when Intel and AMD were both deadlocked in the MHz race and were pushing to break the 2GHz barrier, we were hearing claims of 4GHz within a year and 10GHz by '07. Well, '07 is almost here and 4GHz is still just a pipedream in most situations and not something we see without overclocking and aftermarket cooling options. The only thing that we can rely on is that both AMD and Intel have become quite reliable when they officially announce a product is in development and production and they are usually good about when it will arrive and what it will do. Often only missing a release by a matter of a few days to a week or two, even though it was announced nearly 8 months or more in advance. But upcoming products on their roadmap mean little. Nehalem may not even happen... There's been several tentative chip products over the years that appear on a roadmap, only to be replaced by something else later. I think at this point, all those future entries on the roadmap mean is that it's something being investigated. There could be a significant breakthrough tomorrow in nanotech that allows for 28um production industry-wide within the next two years and then you can bet that Intel, AMD and IBM will throw their current roadmaps out the window. So it means nada until they officially start development and testing on a new product...
ddtlm
Oct 12, 06:02 PM
MacCoaster:
Missed your request for ASM directions for a sec there. :) Anyway, I use NASM. Available here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/nasm
I do my assembly in a .asm file, and use a C program as a wrapper to make things easy. C program, including my C loops. Notice that is't ugly and I manually change it to test different things, but hey it works. You can do better Im sure. :)
#include <math.h>
unsigned int asm_func1( );
unsigned int asm_func2( );
unsigned int asm_func3( );
unsigned int C_func1( )
{
CHRISTINA AGUILERA BURLESQUE
christina aguilera hairstyles
CHRISTINA AGUILERA BURLESQUE
family and Christina
Missed your request for ASM directions for a sec there. :) Anyway, I use NASM. Available here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/nasm
I do my assembly in a .asm file, and use a C program as a wrapper to make things easy. C program, including my C loops. Notice that is't ugly and I manually change it to test different things, but hey it works. You can do better Im sure. :)
#include <math.h>
unsigned int asm_func1( );
unsigned int asm_func2( );
unsigned int asm_func3( );
unsigned int C_func1( )
{
LagunaSol
Apr 28, 08:39 AM
I wonder if those people who complain about iPads not being included in smart phone market share will also complain that the iPad is included in pc sales market share?
The complaint isn't that iPads aren't being included in the smart phone market. The complaint is that there is a sole focus on smart phones when comparing Android vs. iOS market share when clearly the iPad and iPod Touch are very significant portions of the iOS platform.
This is not a "smart phone" platform battle. This is a new mobile computing platform battle. But since Android has no viable competitors to the iPad or iPhone Touch, people (Fandroids and analysts alike) conveniently like to leave those devices out of the equation.
The complaint isn't that iPads aren't being included in the smart phone market. The complaint is that there is a sole focus on smart phones when comparing Android vs. iOS market share when clearly the iPad and iPod Touch are very significant portions of the iOS platform.
This is not a "smart phone" platform battle. This is a new mobile computing platform battle. But since Android has no viable competitors to the iPad or iPhone Touch, people (Fandroids and analysts alike) conveniently like to leave those devices out of the equation.
adamfilip
Sep 26, 07:37 AM
im hoping that apple has optimized leopard to be able to assign certain applications to certain cores. just like what some of the other posters have said
4 cores for Cinema 4D
1 core for internet and mail
2 cores for photoshop
1 core for quicktime dvd playback
4 cores for Cinema 4D
1 core for internet and mail
2 cores for photoshop
1 core for quicktime dvd playback
appleguy123
Apr 22, 09:11 PM
someone hasn't posted in that thread for 5 months ... why would people all of a sudden want to revive it ... today we have this one.
I would be willing to bet that if given time this thread will be a carbon copy of that one.
That thread should be stickied, because I can't really think of any issue(relevant to this topic) we didn't cover in it.
I would be willing to bet that if given time this thread will be a carbon copy of that one.
That thread should be stickied, because I can't really think of any issue(relevant to this topic) we didn't cover in it.
danredwing
Oct 7, 11:26 AM
I don't mean to be rude here. I would never claim that Android isn't a good, interesting and open platform, but I've used both and will definitely say that the Android Platform is no iPhone. It feels like software in a shell and is missing the elegant integration of software and hardware that Apple and the iPhone are known for.
There may be more of them out there at some point because they are easier to get and work with more carriers and there are more companies making their version, so through competition, the prices will be lower.....sound familiar?
There may be more of them out there at some point because they are easier to get and work with more carriers and there are more companies making their version, so through competition, the prices will be lower.....sound familiar?
ElCidRo
May 2, 09:05 AM
so much for the no malware on macs myth :D
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
Quobobo
Mar 18, 07:40 PM
Now why do fag hackers have to go do this? they say they do it cuz the prices that cd's are is "unfair" and "overpriced". now i simply have to ask the question... if your a hacker.. more than likely you deal with computers. dont you think that your overpaid for you job? for a small simple example.. best buy geek squad.. overpriced.. they want 30+ dollars to install a stick of ram. the point is... the money is for the most part equally distributed to be able to pay these high prices. income is accomidated for the high prices of products. if u think it's bad over here.. go to japan and try and buy a medium fries on their "dollar menu" which in usd=$5. so back my main point... just pay the frick'n money, most ppl's income are accomidated for the increase cost. if you feel u cant afford a cd... that's what christmas or your birthday is for or even the radio. by the way... i'm not an "artist" either... im majoring in ECE myself so i'm not biased.
You're majoring at a university? If you're a native speaker of English, you shouldn't have passed high school English with writing skills like that.
All complaints about how painful reading your post is aside, you're missing the point. This has nothing to do with CDs, it's about what people can and can't do with music they paid for. I'd like to be able to play music I download on any computer I own, but DRM files prevent me from doing that. Worse, what's going to happen 10 years from now? If I want to start using something other than iTunes for music, I'll be out of luck.
P.S.
Cost of Medium Fries in Japan (http://www.mcdonalds.co.jp/sales/menu_h_f.html): 252�, about $2.4 USD
You're majoring at a university? If you're a native speaker of English, you shouldn't have passed high school English with writing skills like that.
All complaints about how painful reading your post is aside, you're missing the point. This has nothing to do with CDs, it's about what people can and can't do with music they paid for. I'd like to be able to play music I download on any computer I own, but DRM files prevent me from doing that. Worse, what's going to happen 10 years from now? If I want to start using something other than iTunes for music, I'll be out of luck.
P.S.
Cost of Medium Fries in Japan (http://www.mcdonalds.co.jp/sales/menu_h_f.html): 252�, about $2.4 USD
dgree03
Apr 28, 01:42 PM
After reading much of this thread's replies, I can honestly say that MANY MR users are living in 2009. The tablet is a PC. Yeah, maybe it can't do 100% of what a MacPro can do, but it does 90% of it. You can use the iPad as a PC and do lots of productivity.
Sure, I wish it was a stronger machine, but it does word processing, it connects to the internet in different ways, it plays video, it plays music, it stores things, it can share things, it can compute, it is personal, it can do spread sheets, it can make movies, it can take photos, it can play games, it can do lots and lots and lots. Why wouldn't it be a PC? Because it doesn't render CGI films? Hell, it's close to having Photoshop already. Sure, it's no iMac, but an iMac is no MacPro.
If you aren't calling it a PC in you will in 2012 or 2013. Get used to it now, Technosaurus Rex'ers.
Ipad CAN only DO prolly 20% of what a MacPro CAN DO. Your wording is off.
Sure, I wish it was a stronger machine, but it does word processing, it connects to the internet in different ways, it plays video, it plays music, it stores things, it can share things, it can compute, it is personal, it can do spread sheets, it can make movies, it can take photos, it can play games, it can do lots and lots and lots. Why wouldn't it be a PC? Because it doesn't render CGI films? Hell, it's close to having Photoshop already. Sure, it's no iMac, but an iMac is no MacPro.
If you aren't calling it a PC in you will in 2012 or 2013. Get used to it now, Technosaurus Rex'ers.
Ipad CAN only DO prolly 20% of what a MacPro CAN DO. Your wording is off.
Multimedia
Oct 26, 03:39 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; I know you may find this hard to believe, but the entire multimedia industry does not revolve around the Adobe Suite of graphics applications. Plus the industry is already rolling with G5 Quads for that work. There are plenty of other products that are way UB multi-core ready and/or would like to be run simultaneously in a fully blown multi-application multi-threaded workload.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.Yeah. Professional Mac Pro users can't do the math. :rolleyes:
4 x 3=12GHz
or
8 x 2.66= 21.28GHz
I wonder which one will get my Multi-Threaded Workload done faster? :confused: :eek:Apple will wait for CS3, and by then there will be a 3+ GHz Clovertown available which will provide for an upgrade that would be much easier to market and sell.I believe you are mistaken. A ton of dual 2.66GHz Clovertowns from various vendors will ship next month. Apple can't be seen as the only major Intel vendor to not ship dual Clovertowns in November and put it off until April or May. They would in effect be passing on an entire selling cycle. That would be business suicide. It would also be impossible.
Yes there I said it. What you suggest as will be the future is IMPOSSIBLE.
Oh and welcome to MacRumors. ;) :p :D
4 x 3=12GHz
or
8 x 2.66= 21.28GHz
I wonder which one will get my Multi-Threaded Workload done faster? :confused: :eek:Apple will wait for CS3, and by then there will be a 3+ GHz Clovertown available which will provide for an upgrade that would be much easier to market and sell.I believe you are mistaken. A ton of dual 2.66GHz Clovertowns from various vendors will ship next month. Apple can't be seen as the only major Intel vendor to not ship dual Clovertowns in November and put it off until April or May. They would in effect be passing on an entire selling cycle. That would be business suicide. It would also be impossible.
Yes there I said it. What you suggest as will be the future is IMPOSSIBLE.
Oh and welcome to MacRumors. ;) :p :D
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:36 PM
I can see where you're coming from regarding linear programming. However, commercials aren't going away and any effort to subvert advertising will be met with strong resistance from the content providers.
It is not subverted -- it is evolved. My clients -- the content providers and advertisers -- demand viral marketing efforts -- they are ahead of the curve: they want what works, they want the uTube factor, not yesterday's in your face ads.
It is not subverted -- it is evolved. My clients -- the content providers and advertisers -- demand viral marketing efforts -- they are ahead of the curve: they want what works, they want the uTube factor, not yesterday's in your face ads.
0 comments:
Post a Comment