kresh
Nov 29, 11:13 AM
Just to be clear, this whole idea of collecting on music players is nothing short of outrageous. But it doesn't have the legal implications or weight that have been popularized here. They CAN have their cake and eat it, too, and they know it. That's why it's important for me to ensure that these false notions don't become ingrained as part of the Internet groupthink--when you step back into the real world, you'll be equally screwed, with or without this fee.
I really don't harbor any hope that this could really be considered as royalty payment by the courts, it was just a little fantasy.
The real implication is on the moral front. You mentioned "group think" and I think that is the real danger for the record labels. If enough people were to convince themselves that the record label has grabbed enough money upfront, then they could step across the moral line that keeps them from piracy.
It's not law enforcement, or the actions of RIAA, that prevents the vast majority from crossing the line into piracy, it's their own built-in moral objection to it.
If the record labels remove this moral hurdle through their own actions, then there are not enough police officers, federal agencies, or private enforcement groups to even begin to stem the resulting piracy wave.
I really don't harbor any hope that this could really be considered as royalty payment by the courts, it was just a little fantasy.
The real implication is on the moral front. You mentioned "group think" and I think that is the real danger for the record labels. If enough people were to convince themselves that the record label has grabbed enough money upfront, then they could step across the moral line that keeps them from piracy.
It's not law enforcement, or the actions of RIAA, that prevents the vast majority from crossing the line into piracy, it's their own built-in moral objection to it.
If the record labels remove this moral hurdle through their own actions, then there are not enough police officers, federal agencies, or private enforcement groups to even begin to stem the resulting piracy wave.
Andy-V
Apr 25, 01:56 PM
I think this IS a privacy issue. That data could end up in the wrong hands. Does anyone store a text document on their iPhone with a list of their bank details and passwords? No, because it could end up in the wrong hands. So could this data that's being collected.
This data shouldn't be recorded without permission, no matter what's being done with it.
This data shouldn't be recorded without permission, no matter what's being done with it.
alec
Sep 19, 10:54 AM
lol lol power book g5 rofl rofl OMG hahahahhahahahahahahahha
...
......
for the love of god kill me
...
......
for the love of god kill me
mandoman
Nov 28, 06:33 PM
Universal can take their catalog of music and shove it where
the sun don't shine.
the sun don't shine.
eMagius
Aug 7, 07:36 PM
As others have said, Time Machine is likely either a direct port of Sun's ZFS, or an equivalent implementation in HFS+.
I don't think we can say exactly how things work underneath. Windows 2003 offers differential snapshots without making massive changes to NTFS, for example. It would be neat if Apple did throw its weight behind ZFS, but I'm pretty sure it's not going to happen with 10.5.
According to today's keynote, Apple has finally added support for network drives. But I wonder -- does this mean only other Leopard Macs, or any shared drive that the Mac can connect to? Can I index a Windows shared drive from my Mac, or even a Unix NFS mount? Or is it only other Macs? Once again, if it's limited to other Leopard Macs, then this would be useless for a lot of people (mostly ME! :D).
I don't see how this would work for anything other than other Leopard (maybe Tiger, with a software update) Macs. Spotlight has to have the indexes pre-generated, after all.
Finally, gotta wonder what those "top secret" features are, and why so secret?
Call me a cynic, but I'd say Apple either hasn't implemented them yet or hasn't thought of them yet.
I don't think we can say exactly how things work underneath. Windows 2003 offers differential snapshots without making massive changes to NTFS, for example. It would be neat if Apple did throw its weight behind ZFS, but I'm pretty sure it's not going to happen with 10.5.
According to today's keynote, Apple has finally added support for network drives. But I wonder -- does this mean only other Leopard Macs, or any shared drive that the Mac can connect to? Can I index a Windows shared drive from my Mac, or even a Unix NFS mount? Or is it only other Macs? Once again, if it's limited to other Leopard Macs, then this would be useless for a lot of people (mostly ME! :D).
I don't see how this would work for anything other than other Leopard (maybe Tiger, with a software update) Macs. Spotlight has to have the indexes pre-generated, after all.
Finally, gotta wonder what those "top secret" features are, and why so secret?
Call me a cynic, but I'd say Apple either hasn't implemented them yet or hasn't thought of them yet.
k995
Apr 20, 04:52 AM
And the design was released after the iPhone was out.
ANd you design hardware in a couple of weeks?
Doesnt really matter LG prada wich has simular concept and specs was designed AND shown over a month before iphone was ever shown.
LG can see the future?
Apple copies, samsung copies, LG copies,... everybody does it only only always wants to make believe everyone copies from them.
ANd you design hardware in a couple of weeks?
Doesnt really matter LG prada wich has simular concept and specs was designed AND shown over a month before iphone was ever shown.
LG can see the future?
Apple copies, samsung copies, LG copies,... everybody does it only only always wants to make believe everyone copies from them.
DeathChill
Aug 7, 10:18 PM
Running the preview now... some nice developer level stuff that I cannot ebelish on however beyond what was talked about in the keynote.
The new Core Animation stuff looks simple yet powerful and will increase the visual effects and feedback that application can do with only minor work on their part.
Also new Xcode Tool capabilities are well... great to have (need to review what is available publicly before I can comment more).
Next spring Apple will have a good answer to Vista with little disruption to end users and developers (unlike Vista).
So it's fair to say that developers have received their copy of Leopard?
The new Core Animation stuff looks simple yet powerful and will increase the visual effects and feedback that application can do with only minor work on their part.
Also new Xcode Tool capabilities are well... great to have (need to review what is available publicly before I can comment more).
Next spring Apple will have a good answer to Vista with little disruption to end users and developers (unlike Vista).
So it's fair to say that developers have received their copy of Leopard?
SmileyBlast!
Apr 11, 12:28 PM
They should stick to the June update each year. I know it may not be their fault but Apple need to keep the iPhone up to date, otherwise they will lose ground. Mobile phones are very competitive.
I definitely agree with this.
They need to keep their Market Share and Lead position with regular updates to the iPhone franchise.
I definitely agree with this.
They need to keep their Market Share and Lead position with regular updates to the iPhone franchise.
mikethebigo
Apr 6, 10:23 AM
Does anyone know if the IGP in these processors is underclocked compared to the variants used in the MacBook Pros?
technicolor
Sep 19, 10:05 PM
Speaking personally, I don't see a problem with it.
They've always had updates roughly every 3-6 months, of one kind or another.
Yeah and they werent in Macs, so I didnt care.
They've always had updates roughly every 3-6 months, of one kind or another.
Yeah and they werent in Macs, so I didnt care.
grue
Apr 11, 08:42 PM
Oh, and this is a more minor gripe, btu they need to pull their heads out of their asses and fix their volume licensing program, it's rubbish.
bad03xtreme
Apr 25, 02:28 PM
I should have become a lawyer.
littleman23408
Dec 1, 02:25 PM
after trying out the nascar challenges: :confused:... honestly they should have rather spent their money on getting more recent street cars ... thanks for having 10+ premium nascar cars :rolleyes:
I wish they would have done without the nascar, but it's not to bad playing around with those kinds of races. Those cars are heavy and you sure can feel it when you race them!
I wish they would have done without the nascar, but it's not to bad playing around with those kinds of races. Those cars are heavy and you sure can feel it when you race them!
powers74
Apr 10, 08:39 PM
Or make a lot of people happy. Either way everyone's going to be paying attention.
Lethal
Well, yeah, it will probably make more people happy, but it will be fun to see all the people bitching and moaning around here.
Lethal
Well, yeah, it will probably make more people happy, but it will be fun to see all the people bitching and moaning around here.
28monkeys
Apr 7, 10:32 PM
Obviously you know little about retail and accounting.
Obviously you know nothing about retail.
Obviously you know nothing about retail.
Eraserhead
Mar 1, 04:52 PM
^^ Well maybe, but the Obama administration doesn't believe that law is constitutional.
rezenclowd3
Aug 19, 11:06 PM
Racing games have come a long long way. Based on original racing sims, watching the shock absorbers flex is wonderful. You can feel the bumps. :)
I laugh at both dirt games because of this. The suspension is TOTALLY wrong on the buggies, and just odd on so many more in the game as to how it works. Its like the developers don't know how a double unequal length a-arm works....
For example when one damages a wheel and it rotates as if it is bent, or the hub is bent. The upper a-arm slides in and out lol.
Or in one of the NFS games when one steers max left or right, the inside wheel will stop and the outside will keep on going for a few degrees, and its not the ackerman mind you.
I don't mind the models being the same in GT5 from GT4, as long as online is as good or better than Forza 2. Forza 3 online was a much unneeded step backwards.
I laugh at both dirt games because of this. The suspension is TOTALLY wrong on the buggies, and just odd on so many more in the game as to how it works. Its like the developers don't know how a double unequal length a-arm works....
For example when one damages a wheel and it rotates as if it is bent, or the hub is bent. The upper a-arm slides in and out lol.
Or in one of the NFS games when one steers max left or right, the inside wheel will stop and the outside will keep on going for a few degrees, and its not the ackerman mind you.
I don't mind the models being the same in GT5 from GT4, as long as online is as good or better than Forza 2. Forza 3 online was a much unneeded step backwards.
mccldwll
Apr 19, 08:38 PM
Apple better not win this case and anyone who thinks that they should are a fool.
And anyone who writes "are a fool" is a dolt.
And anyone who writes "are a fool" is a dolt.
dgree03
Apr 6, 02:08 PM
Not bad for a $800 dollar device, available for one carrier. I wonder what the numbers will look like after the late march wifi-only.
At least 100k people know what its like to have a really FUNCTIONAL Tablet.
At least 100k people know what its like to have a really FUNCTIONAL Tablet.
01civicman
Apr 8, 08:30 AM
Sorry if this has been beaten to death over the next nine pages but I just don't have the time to read it all this morning.
It's very simple really. Each day a retail outlet like Best Buy has a budget they want to hit. Even though it depends on local let's call it $75,000. Now let's say in this very high pressure competitive environment I have already made budget but know that tomorrow my budget is going to be $100,000. I'm a little nervous about hitting that but know that I got like 15 iPads sitting in the back. Very simple solution. Do not sell anymore iPads for the day and wait to sell them tomorrow! The iPads alone will net me 10,000 of that budget. No way am I going to sell them after I've made todays goal.
This is just one of many different scenarios but they all are very similar. Should I hold iPads in the back until it looks like we may not hit budget? Should I hold them off for tomorrows monster budget? Should I sell them to go over budget and be tops for the day in the district? Etc, etc, etc.
And I'm telling you that it doesn't matter if you are 15K over one day and 15K light the other day. At the end of the month, its even.
It's very simple really. Each day a retail outlet like Best Buy has a budget they want to hit. Even though it depends on local let's call it $75,000. Now let's say in this very high pressure competitive environment I have already made budget but know that tomorrow my budget is going to be $100,000. I'm a little nervous about hitting that but know that I got like 15 iPads sitting in the back. Very simple solution. Do not sell anymore iPads for the day and wait to sell them tomorrow! The iPads alone will net me 10,000 of that budget. No way am I going to sell them after I've made todays goal.
This is just one of many different scenarios but they all are very similar. Should I hold iPads in the back until it looks like we may not hit budget? Should I hold them off for tomorrows monster budget? Should I sell them to go over budget and be tops for the day in the district? Etc, etc, etc.
And I'm telling you that it doesn't matter if you are 15K over one day and 15K light the other day. At the end of the month, its even.
NAG
Mar 31, 03:14 PM
The real Android bait-and-switch is calling the platform "open" to consumers. Sure, there are a few "Google Experience" devices that have not been mutilated by handset makers, but even those often have closed hardware. The way I see it, Google uses this ruse of openness to get geek support. Geeks then advocate their platform, which is a great form of marketing.
The reality is that any Android handset with a locked bootloader or no root access from the factory is just about as closed as any iOS device (or BlackBerry, WebOS, Windows, etc. device). The open vs. closed = Android vs. iOS argument is ridiculous, because it focuses on the part of the platform (underlying source code) that matters the least to almost all users.
Actually, I think the open shtick was probably mostly to convince handset makers to abandon Windows Mobile (not that they needed to do much with Microsoft finding new and inventive ways to shoot themselves in the foot). It's open and free meant that the handset makers were not beholden to Redmond, which everyone was chafing under. Just look at HP if you want a good example of former Redmond partners fleeing as fast as they can (which isn't very fast but still).
The handset makers only recently realized, apparently, that Google is not their white knight and Google is just trying to use them as pawns to make everyone dependent on Google advertising. Does this come as any surprise after handset makers started toying with things like removing Google search for Bing or removing the Android marketplace entirely?
Google wanting greater control so they can maintain their business plan isn't evil, of course since only Apple is evil. :rolleyes: Seriously though, the issue here is that Google's true plan (or loyalties, I guess) are being laid bare and they are not what they've been claiming (although if you were paying attention you would have known they were lying from the start). Did they plan to do this from the start? I doubt it. Android has always been reactionary � they tried to fix it with the various Google phones that failed and then tried to decouple components of the OS so they could be updated via the marketplace and not as reliant on the handset makers/carriers. It still doesn't excuse Google for blatantly lying about their motives.
The reality is that any Android handset with a locked bootloader or no root access from the factory is just about as closed as any iOS device (or BlackBerry, WebOS, Windows, etc. device). The open vs. closed = Android vs. iOS argument is ridiculous, because it focuses on the part of the platform (underlying source code) that matters the least to almost all users.
Actually, I think the open shtick was probably mostly to convince handset makers to abandon Windows Mobile (not that they needed to do much with Microsoft finding new and inventive ways to shoot themselves in the foot). It's open and free meant that the handset makers were not beholden to Redmond, which everyone was chafing under. Just look at HP if you want a good example of former Redmond partners fleeing as fast as they can (which isn't very fast but still).
The handset makers only recently realized, apparently, that Google is not their white knight and Google is just trying to use them as pawns to make everyone dependent on Google advertising. Does this come as any surprise after handset makers started toying with things like removing Google search for Bing or removing the Android marketplace entirely?
Google wanting greater control so they can maintain their business plan isn't evil, of course since only Apple is evil. :rolleyes: Seriously though, the issue here is that Google's true plan (or loyalties, I guess) are being laid bare and they are not what they've been claiming (although if you were paying attention you would have known they were lying from the start). Did they plan to do this from the start? I doubt it. Android has always been reactionary � they tried to fix it with the various Google phones that failed and then tried to decouple components of the OS so they could be updated via the marketplace and not as reliant on the handset makers/carriers. It still doesn't excuse Google for blatantly lying about their motives.
iGary
Feb 28, 05:14 PM
A same-sex attracted person is living a "gay lifestyle" when he or she dates people of the same sex, "marries" people of the same sex, has same-sex sex, or does any combination of these things. I think that if same-sex attracted people are going to live together, they need to do that as though they were siblings, not as sex partners. In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere tool.
Some may say, "I have sex with my girlfriend to show her that I love her." If I had a girlfriend, I would hope I would love her enough to protect her from the physical and psychological risks that come with non-marital sex. The best way for me to do that is for my hypothetical girlfriend and me to be celibate before marriage.
Sacramentally same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage. Neither is merely civil marriage of any sort. If I understand what the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage merely civil, it teaches non-sacramental marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is legal fornication.
Whatever crutch gets you through life.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere tool.
Some may say, "I have sex with my girlfriend to show her that I love her." If I had a girlfriend, I would hope I would love her enough to protect her from the physical and psychological risks that come with non-marital sex. The best way for me to do that is for my hypothetical girlfriend and me to be celibate before marriage.
Sacramentally same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage. Neither is merely civil marriage of any sort. If I understand what the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage merely civil, it teaches non-sacramental marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is legal fornication.
Whatever crutch gets you through life.
IceMacMac
Apr 10, 08:55 PM
...and I hate having to render. I hate the various pixel aspect ratios and formats there are, including PAL and NTSC....
Steve Jobs reality distortion field must be supercharged these days, where with a new release of FCP Apple might instantly re-write broadcasting standards and give millions of people new TVs that don't require NTSC and PAL.
You aren't expecting much at all! :D
Steve Jobs reality distortion field must be supercharged these days, where with a new release of FCP Apple might instantly re-write broadcasting standards and give millions of people new TVs that don't require NTSC and PAL.
You aren't expecting much at all! :D
takao
Dec 7, 05:04 PM
Keep that Lotus, you can use it for the British Lightweight race.
ah the british lightweight .. i remembered it much much harder from gt4 .. since this time around lightweight just means being under 1200 kg and british ;) so my 300 kW TVR was qualified which of course smoked the competition
that said i find it stil ldissapointing that opposed to gt4 you can't difference between imperial and metric measurements more seperate
which means either mp/h and HP or km/h and kW
which is unfortunate since nobody really uses kW except for taxes ;)
ah the british lightweight .. i remembered it much much harder from gt4 .. since this time around lightweight just means being under 1200 kg and british ;) so my 300 kW TVR was qualified which of course smoked the competition
that said i find it stil ldissapointing that opposed to gt4 you can't difference between imperial and metric measurements more seperate
which means either mp/h and HP or km/h and kW
which is unfortunate since nobody really uses kW except for taxes ;)
