ChrisA
Jul 12, 12:19 PM
Just as a data point for you all: I'm typing this on a dual processor Xeon runing at 3.6 Ghz.
Each procesor has 1M cache. The system has 4GB RAM and some 10K RPM Ultra-SCSI disks. It runs Linux. This system runs circles around any current Intel Mac. I'm not putting Mac down. Not at all. I just wanted to let you all know to expect a huge performane jump when these new dual and quad core woodcrest machines come out.
You want my guess about what's comming. Apple will offer a high-end dual Woodcrest, quad core "mac pro" and it will be expensive. But they will also offer a lower-end dual processor (Conroe) tower. in a mini-tower configuration. Call it a "Mac Pro Lite" for arounr $2K
Each procesor has 1M cache. The system has 4GB RAM and some 10K RPM Ultra-SCSI disks. It runs Linux. This system runs circles around any current Intel Mac. I'm not putting Mac down. Not at all. I just wanted to let you all know to expect a huge performane jump when these new dual and quad core woodcrest machines come out.
You want my guess about what's comming. Apple will offer a high-end dual Woodcrest, quad core "mac pro" and it will be expensive. But they will also offer a lower-end dual processor (Conroe) tower. in a mini-tower configuration. Call it a "Mac Pro Lite" for arounr $2K
rasmasyean
Apr 24, 03:56 AM
In my short time serving in the Canadian military, I had not seen this. There was a rather flexible chaplain who served the religious needs of several faiths but most soldiers were left to stew in their own thoughts.
Well…we can argue whether Canadians support a real military but we don’t have to go there. :p
All I’m saying is that any respectable military has to prepare for sending a large group of soldiers into known suicide missions. This is what “cannon fodder” is. Sometimes you can’t hide it from the warrior. Sometimes they WILL KNOW that they will die. But this is absolutely necessary to purposely sacrifice their lives in order to achieve a strategic goal…or even victory. It’s much easier if these warriors are imprinted with the idea of “god and heaven”.
Now, in these stupid overwhelmingly “crushing an inferior force” type of wars we’ve been engaged in, perhaps these situations don’t come up as much. Or if they do, you can hand pick a couple of “zealots” to do the job. But if there was a “real war”, like for example, if oil gets scarce and Europe turns on each other… Don’t laugh. If the “middle east” turn on each other all the time for oil, it can happen to “the west” too. You would be real arrogant to think that you are so much “better” than them. And if you ARE that arrogant about being a “sophisticated Westerner” think about China…or Russia.
Hey, maybe our fighting force will be so robotic one day that it doesn’t matter. War will become an ego contest between engineers and no blood will be shed. But until the technology becomes reality, we still need cannon fodder capability for potential tight situations. ;)
Well…we can argue whether Canadians support a real military but we don’t have to go there. :p
All I’m saying is that any respectable military has to prepare for sending a large group of soldiers into known suicide missions. This is what “cannon fodder” is. Sometimes you can’t hide it from the warrior. Sometimes they WILL KNOW that they will die. But this is absolutely necessary to purposely sacrifice their lives in order to achieve a strategic goal…or even victory. It’s much easier if these warriors are imprinted with the idea of “god and heaven”.
Now, in these stupid overwhelmingly “crushing an inferior force” type of wars we’ve been engaged in, perhaps these situations don’t come up as much. Or if they do, you can hand pick a couple of “zealots” to do the job. But if there was a “real war”, like for example, if oil gets scarce and Europe turns on each other… Don’t laugh. If the “middle east” turn on each other all the time for oil, it can happen to “the west” too. You would be real arrogant to think that you are so much “better” than them. And if you ARE that arrogant about being a “sophisticated Westerner” think about China…or Russia.
Hey, maybe our fighting force will be so robotic one day that it doesn’t matter. War will become an ego contest between engineers and no blood will be shed. But until the technology becomes reality, we still need cannon fodder capability for potential tight situations. ;)
Rt&Dzine
Apr 22, 09:26 PM
OP, to back up your hypothesis we would need real percentages of atheists in the MacRumors community and the community at large.
Perhaps the anonymity afforded one on the internets affects how one answers (just like the 16 year old hottie is actually a 45 year old cop).
Perhaps education/enlightenment, long considered the anathema of religion, is at play.
Perhaps a younger demographic here is a factor.
But first, is there a higher percentage of atheists here?
What community at large are you referring to? The world? Some Americans may not be taking the international makeup of MR into consideration.
Perhaps the anonymity afforded one on the internets affects how one answers (just like the 16 year old hottie is actually a 45 year old cop).
Perhaps education/enlightenment, long considered the anathema of religion, is at play.
Perhaps a younger demographic here is a factor.
But first, is there a higher percentage of atheists here?
What community at large are you referring to? The world? Some Americans may not be taking the international makeup of MR into consideration.
jettredmont
May 2, 05:35 PM
Is your info from like 1993 ? Because this little known version of Windows dubbed "New Technology" or NT for short brought along something called the NTFS (New Technology File System) that has... *drumroll* ACLs and strict permissions with inheritance...
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Absolutely. I think it is absolutely critical to discern between a social-engineering attack (ie, one that requires a user to take some action unwittingly) from an automated attack (a classic virus or worm). The latter is certainly less common these days (although the "big boys" wanting to send Iranian nuclear reactors into convulsions seem to be keeping the dark art of worming alive and well), and so a typical user is much more likely to fall victim to a phishing scam than to get something nasty like the Asuza virus which wipes out their hard drive after an incubation period.
From the main "security firms", though, the money is in making all malware seem automated and thus only able to be countered by an automated virus detection/isolation utility. There just isn't much money in telling people to not click "Install" when MACDefender's installer comes up while looking through Google Images.
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Absolutely. I think it is absolutely critical to discern between a social-engineering attack (ie, one that requires a user to take some action unwittingly) from an automated attack (a classic virus or worm). The latter is certainly less common these days (although the "big boys" wanting to send Iranian nuclear reactors into convulsions seem to be keeping the dark art of worming alive and well), and so a typical user is much more likely to fall victim to a phishing scam than to get something nasty like the Asuza virus which wipes out their hard drive after an incubation period.
From the main "security firms", though, the money is in making all malware seem automated and thus only able to be countered by an automated virus detection/isolation utility. There just isn't much money in telling people to not click "Install" when MACDefender's installer comes up while looking through Google Images.
iphones4evry1
May 6, 01:32 AM
I have definitely noticed an increase over the past few months. I used to experience a dropped call about once every two months, and now it's about twice per week.
AT&T really needs to work on this problem. It seems to be getting worse.
AT&T really needs to work on this problem. It seems to be getting worse.
KPOM
Mar 11, 08:59 PM
I pray that this will not turn into another Chernobyl situation.
Building standards in Japan are far higher than they were in the old USSR. If anything, it would be more like a 3 Mile Island than a Chernobyl. I just saw a nuclear power expert on the news who said that the odds of a Chernobyl, while certainly not 0%, are low. He's more worried about disposal of nuclear waste if the plant needs to be decommissioned.
That said, it is an old plant (from the 1960s) where they are most concerned about a possible meltdown. It doesn't have a modern containment dome.
Building standards in Japan are far higher than they were in the old USSR. If anything, it would be more like a 3 Mile Island than a Chernobyl. I just saw a nuclear power expert on the news who said that the odds of a Chernobyl, while certainly not 0%, are low. He's more worried about disposal of nuclear waste if the plant needs to be decommissioned.
That said, it is an old plant (from the 1960s) where they are most concerned about a possible meltdown. It doesn't have a modern containment dome.
ddtlm
Oct 12, 06:56 PM
nixd2001:
The flags don't do anything to my x86 results either. This loop is just hard to optimize. I did manual unrolling, replaced mults with adds (which we can actually do safely since the float values in the loop controlls are not factions), and even replaced one of the loop counters with an int in conjuntion with the other two above (in such a way that I needed no typecaseing)... and the resukts inproved maybe 5% on the Mac and none on the PC.
The flags don't do anything to my x86 results either. This loop is just hard to optimize. I did manual unrolling, replaced mults with adds (which we can actually do safely since the float values in the loop controlls are not factions), and even replaced one of the loop counters with an int in conjuntion with the other two above (in such a way that I needed no typecaseing)... and the resukts inproved maybe 5% on the Mac and none on the PC.
jegbook
Apr 12, 04:06 PM
The delete thing bothers me a bit. What do you mean you can't move up? You mean with backspace? There is a preference in finder to show entire path so I never have trouble navigating up folder structure. If you are used to Vista and leaning toward 7, perhaps OS X isn't for you.
It's really not about how I delete things, nor is it about the pretty colors. It's about how much of my time I have to spend futzing with stuff like broken drivers, missing printers, yada yada yada.
I will admit I wasted a few hours this week chasing a Time Machine issue but that's about all the futzing I've had to do since about November. I'm willing to deal with the limitations and quirks of OS X because OS X doesn't waste my time. And it wasn't something I had to do in order to send my taxes or print out show tickets. I did it when I felt like I had the time, unlike so many windows problems that crop up on the way to an important meeting. I haven't seen an "are you sure" on my Mac since I got it. To me sometimes it seems like Windows was written to harvest clicks while OS X was written to avoid unnecessary user intervention.
Sure there are some quirks. Like the way copied folders are replaced, not merged with destination folders. Like the missing "cut" and "delete" features. But for me these quirks are no big deal and I look forward to sitting down in front of my Mac after suffering with 7 all day at work. But what we say in this thread isn't necessarily relevant to your situation. Based on what we have described, you can get a sense as to how "different" OS X is. To me, it's really not that much different. What is more important is how different it is to you and whether it bothers you.
Your comment about "suffering with 7 all day" is surprising to me. I don't know if I've seen Windows 7 experience a full OS crash. And I've been toying with Win 7 since it was in beta.
Sure, it ain't perfect, but I find Win 7 pretty darn efficient overall. I haven't encountered any OS related issues with 7 yet. Application quirks, sure, but not really any OS problems.
I'd say OS X and Win 7 are much more comparable than Vista or XP.
Again, it comes down mostly to what you need a computer to do.
Cheers, all.
It's really not about how I delete things, nor is it about the pretty colors. It's about how much of my time I have to spend futzing with stuff like broken drivers, missing printers, yada yada yada.
I will admit I wasted a few hours this week chasing a Time Machine issue but that's about all the futzing I've had to do since about November. I'm willing to deal with the limitations and quirks of OS X because OS X doesn't waste my time. And it wasn't something I had to do in order to send my taxes or print out show tickets. I did it when I felt like I had the time, unlike so many windows problems that crop up on the way to an important meeting. I haven't seen an "are you sure" on my Mac since I got it. To me sometimes it seems like Windows was written to harvest clicks while OS X was written to avoid unnecessary user intervention.
Sure there are some quirks. Like the way copied folders are replaced, not merged with destination folders. Like the missing "cut" and "delete" features. But for me these quirks are no big deal and I look forward to sitting down in front of my Mac after suffering with 7 all day at work. But what we say in this thread isn't necessarily relevant to your situation. Based on what we have described, you can get a sense as to how "different" OS X is. To me, it's really not that much different. What is more important is how different it is to you and whether it bothers you.
Your comment about "suffering with 7 all day" is surprising to me. I don't know if I've seen Windows 7 experience a full OS crash. And I've been toying with Win 7 since it was in beta.
Sure, it ain't perfect, but I find Win 7 pretty darn efficient overall. I haven't encountered any OS related issues with 7 yet. Application quirks, sure, but not really any OS problems.
I'd say OS X and Win 7 are much more comparable than Vista or XP.
Again, it comes down mostly to what you need a computer to do.
Cheers, all.
kingtj
Aug 29, 12:54 PM
The fact is, Apple computers make up well under 8% of the total world computer marketplace. FAR less if you include all the mainframes and minicomputers in that estimate.
If Apple did absolutely *nothing* special to please environmentalists... no recycling programs whatsoever, etc. - it would have relatively little impact on the overall situation. The fact is, they DO take some steps towards being environmentally responsible anyway.
Truthfully, it's a much more serious issue if a *large* computer supplier like Dell scores badly in this area. They pump out MANY more PCs on corporate desktops all over the world. Apple has to showcase it when they can find a business that bought thousands of their computers at a time. For Dell or IBM, they could point to that in several companies in any major American city.
Groups like Greenpeace border on fanatical....
This is a real bummer to me. I pride myself on making as little an impact on the environment as I can, but make my living using computers to make music... and I use all Apple products... so I'm feeling really guilty about this right now.
If Apple did absolutely *nothing* special to please environmentalists... no recycling programs whatsoever, etc. - it would have relatively little impact on the overall situation. The fact is, they DO take some steps towards being environmentally responsible anyway.
Truthfully, it's a much more serious issue if a *large* computer supplier like Dell scores badly in this area. They pump out MANY more PCs on corporate desktops all over the world. Apple has to showcase it when they can find a business that bought thousands of their computers at a time. For Dell or IBM, they could point to that in several companies in any major American city.
Groups like Greenpeace border on fanatical....
This is a real bummer to me. I pride myself on making as little an impact on the environment as I can, but make my living using computers to make music... and I use all Apple products... so I'm feeling really guilty about this right now.
justflie
Mar 18, 07:29 AM
What exactly about "unlimited" don't people understand? Without limits.
Palanka
Oct 26, 12:00 AM
I cant stand AT&T...Their service sucks.. Your company would go under if it were to their "business services" department.
maclaptop
Apr 28, 08:06 AM
The real facts are its only a report. The bottom line is Apple is stronger than ever and doing a great job.
That's all that matters to me.
One look at the stock price reminds me of how fortunate I was to get in when shares were selling for under $20.00
Its been a good ride.
That's all that matters to me.
One look at the stock price reminds me of how fortunate I was to get in when shares were selling for under $20.00
Its been a good ride.
nsjoker
Sep 20, 06:51 PM
either i'm missing the point of this iTV thing or people in america have ridiculous amounts of money to throw away and are willing to pay for tv shows which are free so they can stream them to their iTV box and watch them that way. it's a super efficient way to burn money, but not to watch tv shows. dvr please.
i mean.. i do understand people want frontrow on their tv's, but it seems like an inital craze thing. i'm not going to completely knock this product though, because if anything it's a starting point for apple to infiltrate your living room, and then releasing dvr functionality in the future. we'll see.
i mean.. i do understand people want frontrow on their tv's, but it seems like an inital craze thing. i'm not going to completely knock this product though, because if anything it's a starting point for apple to infiltrate your living room, and then releasing dvr functionality in the future. we'll see.
WiiDSmoker
Apr 20, 06:38 PM
This virus talk is full of ignorance. Mac OSX is not more secure than Windows. Windows is just targeted more, because of the marketshare.
If you think that Apple writes perfect code everytime then you have no idea what you're talking about.
If you think that Apple writes perfect code everytime then you have no idea what you're talking about.
Peace
Sep 12, 06:22 PM
I am dying to see what this thing looks like. Does anyone have an image of it?
Please?!
look on the previous pages.I posted links
or go to engadget.com
Please?!
look on the previous pages.I posted links
or go to engadget.com
bpaluzzi
Apr 28, 01:06 PM
No I understand quite well. Your example leads me to believe you don't.
People didn't wear, display, or carry their internet connection in public, they did the iPod.
Why do you think White headphones, and MP3 players of similar look / shape & form factor became popular (from other manufacturers mind you) after the iPod became popular? Likely because it was a popular look / gadget that many people wanted.
A fad rarely includes items of technology, but sometimes it does. The subject of the iPod being a fad isn't something just I created / think, it has been discussed for a few years now, especially since the introduction of the iPhone.
Cheers
Yeah, you still don't understand what a fad is. Wow.
People didn't wear, display, or carry their internet connection in public, they did the iPod.
Why do you think White headphones, and MP3 players of similar look / shape & form factor became popular (from other manufacturers mind you) after the iPod became popular? Likely because it was a popular look / gadget that many people wanted.
A fad rarely includes items of technology, but sometimes it does. The subject of the iPod being a fad isn't something just I created / think, it has been discussed for a few years now, especially since the introduction of the iPhone.
Cheers
Yeah, you still don't understand what a fad is. Wow.
D4F
Apr 28, 08:21 AM
Why not? After all, isn't an iPod Touch just a small iPad?
There's a difference between a PC (machine that gives you the ability to work) and a communication / entertainment device. It's amazing people cant see such obvious things lol.
No wonder when I quote a client on a 3D render they make HUGe eyes and say "i thought a computer does this" lol. Read a bit people. if you can't find basic info about what's going on around you using google then you are just plain stupid.
There's a difference between a PC (machine that gives you the ability to work) and a communication / entertainment device. It's amazing people cant see such obvious things lol.
No wonder when I quote a client on a 3D render they make HUGe eyes and say "i thought a computer does this" lol. Read a bit people. if you can't find basic info about what's going on around you using google then you are just plain stupid.
superleccy
Sep 20, 06:20 AM
Yeah Ok, thats fine, but then I also need a machine to get content from my TV/tuner/satelite to my Mac.
www.elgato.com (http://www.elgato.com/)
Of course, the downside of this is if your "den" or wherever you keep your Mac doesn't have a cable/ariel/satellite socket in the wall. I actually run my EyeTV 410 off a cheap indoor antenna for this reason. Looks ugly but works fine.
www.elgato.com (http://www.elgato.com/)
Of course, the downside of this is if your "den" or wherever you keep your Mac doesn't have a cable/ariel/satellite socket in the wall. I actually run my EyeTV 410 off a cheap indoor antenna for this reason. Looks ugly but works fine.
Popeye206
Apr 21, 09:03 AM
So are you going to tell me that paying for tethering ON TOP OF DATA YOU ALREADY PAID FOR is fair? Data is data is data... 4gb is 4gb no matter how I use it. Tethering cost are a joke!:mad: /end rant
You are joking right?
Fair or not, it's not Apple's fault. It's the carriers who have imposed this structure and probably fair. They do have to be able to support the extra data traffic if tethering was just open for anyone without paying. Personally, I think it's a waste anyway. At home it's WiFi... on the road it's my iPhone or I find WiFi if I need it for my laptop which is not hard to do.
Anyway... like it or not, it's not a free service today. Is it fair? I don't think so either and I think in the long run phone companies will bundle it in with the data packages. As well as having multiple devices assigned to the same plan so you can have one data plan that your smart phone and tablet can share.
But for now... it is what it is and if you're not paying for it, well, what can I say... good for you.
You are joking right?
Fair or not, it's not Apple's fault. It's the carriers who have imposed this structure and probably fair. They do have to be able to support the extra data traffic if tethering was just open for anyone without paying. Personally, I think it's a waste anyway. At home it's WiFi... on the road it's my iPhone or I find WiFi if I need it for my laptop which is not hard to do.
Anyway... like it or not, it's not a free service today. Is it fair? I don't think so either and I think in the long run phone companies will bundle it in with the data packages. As well as having multiple devices assigned to the same plan so you can have one data plan that your smart phone and tablet can share.
But for now... it is what it is and if you're not paying for it, well, what can I say... good for you.
dante@sisna.com
Nov 1, 11:02 AM
Oops! This makes me change my mind about buying this Fall:
"HP, and other OEMs, should have Clovertown gear ready on the 14th. Our sources inside HP say the chip is eating between 140 watts and 150 watts..." :eek:
"Intel hopes to deliver less power hungry parts in short order. CEO Paul Otellini has talked about 50W and 80W Clovertown parts set for the early part of 2007 (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/26/intel_quad-core_roadmap/)." :)
Guess I'm gonna have to be a little more patient a little longer in that case. That will be after MacWorld Expo toward the end of January then. Oh well. So much for immediate gratification. ;) Looks like waiting for the 8-core to ship with Leopard will jive with the cooler less power hungry monsters as well.
Thanks for bursting my bubble. :( I can get back to the business of another longer term wait similar to the wait for Santa Rosa or the mobile C2D MBP that's shipping now after 10 months of mobile CDs. At least it won't be that much longer. :cool: Looks like Clovertown Rev. B will be worth waiting for as well.
My apologies to all who were negatively infected by my extreeme enthusiasm for the first Clovertown release before I understood this new information. I can wait. I know some of you can't.
And I also may change my mind again when/if Apple releases a hot version first. Maybe they'll pass on the 150 watt models. Or perhaps they have real good cooling figured out. But I think I'd rather be ecological and buy what consumes less power anyway - especially in light of only another 2-3 months time.
Thanks to all who have invested time to collect and share information on Clovertons.
I have a couple of G5 Quads I was going to upgrade to Clovertons as well. Now, after viewing this short, but informative thread, I too, will wait until Mid-2007 and make the giant leap.
Appreciate everyone's efforts and intelligence.
Dante
CreativeBeans
"HP, and other OEMs, should have Clovertown gear ready on the 14th. Our sources inside HP say the chip is eating between 140 watts and 150 watts..." :eek:
"Intel hopes to deliver less power hungry parts in short order. CEO Paul Otellini has talked about 50W and 80W Clovertown parts set for the early part of 2007 (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/26/intel_quad-core_roadmap/)." :)
Guess I'm gonna have to be a little more patient a little longer in that case. That will be after MacWorld Expo toward the end of January then. Oh well. So much for immediate gratification. ;) Looks like waiting for the 8-core to ship with Leopard will jive with the cooler less power hungry monsters as well.
Thanks for bursting my bubble. :( I can get back to the business of another longer term wait similar to the wait for Santa Rosa or the mobile C2D MBP that's shipping now after 10 months of mobile CDs. At least it won't be that much longer. :cool: Looks like Clovertown Rev. B will be worth waiting for as well.
My apologies to all who were negatively infected by my extreeme enthusiasm for the first Clovertown release before I understood this new information. I can wait. I know some of you can't.
And I also may change my mind again when/if Apple releases a hot version first. Maybe they'll pass on the 150 watt models. Or perhaps they have real good cooling figured out. But I think I'd rather be ecological and buy what consumes less power anyway - especially in light of only another 2-3 months time.
Thanks to all who have invested time to collect and share information on Clovertons.
I have a couple of G5 Quads I was going to upgrade to Clovertons as well. Now, after viewing this short, but informative thread, I too, will wait until Mid-2007 and make the giant leap.
Appreciate everyone's efforts and intelligence.
Dante
CreativeBeans
matticus008
Mar 20, 06:27 PM
It is wrong? How so? If I burn a track for my wedding video, yes, I'm technically breakeing the law, but there is nothing immoral about doing that. No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. He isn't stealing anything. He's breaking a copyright law that makes no sense in that case.
Oh, for crying out loud. Breaking the law is breaking the law, and breaking the law is wrong. If the law is wrong in your opinion, change the law. That is the only correct approach to dealing with it, except in cases of governmental injustice. This is not one of those cases, as this causes you no personal or meaningful financial harm. Furthermore, if you are using iTunes music, and you are using iMovie/iDVD, you CAN use tracks in your videos. They import in and you can use them freely in your projects. No step in that process is doing something actively against any terms of service or fair use. If you don't want to use something that supports FairPlay DRM for your project, DON'T BUY MUSIC FROM iTUNES TO DO IT. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED BY YOUR AGREEMENT WITH APPLE AND iTUNES TO USE THE MUSIC ANY OTHER WAY.
It's really very simple. If you want to break your active agreement to follow the terms of use, why should the RIAA uphold their agreement not to infringe on fair use rights? You're breaking your agreement, so why shouldn't they? This is why it's wrong.
Oh, for crying out loud. Breaking the law is breaking the law, and breaking the law is wrong. If the law is wrong in your opinion, change the law. That is the only correct approach to dealing with it, except in cases of governmental injustice. This is not one of those cases, as this causes you no personal or meaningful financial harm. Furthermore, if you are using iTunes music, and you are using iMovie/iDVD, you CAN use tracks in your videos. They import in and you can use them freely in your projects. No step in that process is doing something actively against any terms of service or fair use. If you don't want to use something that supports FairPlay DRM for your project, DON'T BUY MUSIC FROM iTUNES TO DO IT. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED BY YOUR AGREEMENT WITH APPLE AND iTUNES TO USE THE MUSIC ANY OTHER WAY.
It's really very simple. If you want to break your active agreement to follow the terms of use, why should the RIAA uphold their agreement not to infringe on fair use rights? You're breaking your agreement, so why shouldn't they? This is why it's wrong.
Peterkro
Mar 13, 07:38 PM
We don't all have scrubland... or reliable sunshine! Can't see solar power taking off in the UK, I'm afraid. The same goes for most of Northern Europe.
With cooperation it may not be as difficult as many think:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/23/solarpower.windpower
With cooperation it may not be as difficult as many think:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/23/solarpower.windpower
eric_n_dfw
Mar 19, 10:46 PM
You're all far too willing to accept the RIAA's iron grip over downloading music. Apple's DRM is disgusting - but you want to say "shut it down! or our prices will go up! or they'll make the DRM worse!" Well, you've got to do better than that - because they owe it to us to sell a better product. I want to own my music - I know the paradigm is new, I know it's a virtual product any way you slice it, but DVD Jon is doing the right thing, and we need to send a message.They owe it to us? The only people Apple owes anything to is their shareholders.
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:11 PM
What are you talking about? Don't blame your ignorance on semantics. Try understanding what you read first.
If you are talking about an unmarried straight couple, then yes, you can have same-sex sex and it's "just as OK", i.e., equally not OK.
And the difference is that the heterosexual couple can get married, while the homosexual couple can't. And that is an inequality that your church has helped to create.
If you are talking about an unmarried straight couple, then yes, you can have same-sex sex and it's "just as OK", i.e., equally not OK.
And the difference is that the heterosexual couple can get married, while the homosexual couple can't. And that is an inequality that your church has helped to create.
No comments:
Post a Comment