IBradMac
May 5, 08:38 PM
AT&T Customers Continuing to Experience Excessive Dropped Calls
Four years now. wow.
Four years now. wow.
matticus008
Mar 19, 04:35 PM
Does iTunes really only sell you a license to the track? Is this in writing anywhere?
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
kayle12
May 5, 10:37 AM
I have Verizon and I think I've had two dropped calls in years.
AT&T really needs to get more towers up, that's the only solution in my mind.
Kayle
AT&T really needs to get more towers up, that's the only solution in my mind.
Kayle
skunk
Mar 27, 07:46 PM
If I've harmed anyone in anyone in any way, I want to hear about that from the harmed ones. Everyone here is welcome to his opinion about me. If anyone here hates me, he's welcome to say so publicly or privately. But I think I'm the only one here who knows whether I hate anyone. We're strangers to one another.I do not hate you in the least, but I do recognise hateful, dogmatic propaganda when I see it.
paul4339
Apr 28, 11:51 AM
Yes, I strongly disagree that students need to learn Windows in order to thrive in the workplace. ... Kids need to learn how to use a computer. Which one is not that important any more. ...
I agree, students need to learn to use a/any computer and how to *think*. If they can do that they can learn any computer and adapt to change.
P.
I agree, students need to learn to use a/any computer and how to *think*. If they can do that they can learn any computer and adapt to change.
P.
iJohnHenry
Mar 14, 04:51 PM
So who was it posting the map?
Speaking of power, your sarcasm meter needs to be on a UPS.
It's a global problem, though the US is the worst offender.
Nice save, and in one sentence.
The U.S. is proving to be the worst thing to happen to Mother Earth since the inception of time.
Speaking of power, your sarcasm meter needs to be on a UPS.
It's a global problem, though the US is the worst offender.
Nice save, and in one sentence.
The U.S. is proving to be the worst thing to happen to Mother Earth since the inception of time.
jaseone
Mar 19, 05:59 PM
I wish people would understand that this program is mainly created so that people who use Linux (don't know if you have heard of it, it has a larger market share than Mac OS X if I remember right :rolleyes: ) can listen to the music which they have purchased.
Uhm why is the program Windows only then???
Uhm why is the program Windows only then???
DMann
Sep 26, 01:11 AM
8 cores ought to be enough for anybody. true, what would you do with extra cores? simply overkill.
Eight cores, with hyper threading active would dramatically reduce
rendering times, making production a whole lot faster and
more efficient. This is truly something to be psyched about!
Eight cores, with hyper threading active would dramatically reduce
rendering times, making production a whole lot faster and
more efficient. This is truly something to be psyched about!
portishead
Apr 12, 11:00 PM
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
I don't think many people are going to feel this way.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
How so?
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
Avid is still probably better for film work, but it's hard to tell until we get our hands on FCPX.
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
You can use a separate app. Nobody has said anything about abandoning color. I'm sure there will be a title tool. It's probably not ready yet. This was a PREVIEW after all.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
The app was re-written. Certainly features aren't going to carry over right away. Short term, there will be some drop off, but after a release or two, FCPX could grow into a nice app.
I don't think many people are going to feel this way.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
How so?
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
Avid is still probably better for film work, but it's hard to tell until we get our hands on FCPX.
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
You can use a separate app. Nobody has said anything about abandoning color. I'm sure there will be a title tool. It's probably not ready yet. This was a PREVIEW after all.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
The app was re-written. Certainly features aren't going to carry over right away. Short term, there will be some drop off, but after a release or two, FCPX could grow into a nice app.
SuperCachetes
Apr 25, 10:06 PM
But Allah is a great poster boy for Atheists as to why religion is the root of all problems lol
Uh, what lol?. :rolleyes:
Do try to keep your bias contained to yourself.
Uh, what lol?. :rolleyes:
Do try to keep your bias contained to yourself.
sinsin07
Apr 9, 08:50 AM
Totally agree. The other day I was in the queue at the grocery store and some dude was playing some noob game on his iOS phone... I was like "dude, you should be playing that on a PS3" and he was all "yeah but where would I plug it in and set-up the TV?" and I was like "just use the NGP" and he said "Great, where can I buy that?"
Enrique Iglesias and Anna
Anna Kournikova
Anna Kournikova and Enrique
anna kournikova enrique
Enrique Iglesias kicked out of
Premiere: Enrique Iglesias and
Is tennis hottie Anna
Enrique Iglesias and Anna
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:33 AM
All I'm doing is trying to argue that sure, there's plenty of stuff in there you're going to disagree with. And that's fine and I'm sure you'd have a lot of compelling arguments to refute the points.
But it's not *hateful*. I don't see how a rational being could find that hateful. That's just something that shuts down discussion and mischaracterizes an opponent.
It is hateful to trivialize a person's identity; to claim that homosexuality is a "trial", that must be overcome. It's dehumanizing, and it's hateful.
But it's not *hateful*. I don't see how a rational being could find that hateful. That's just something that shuts down discussion and mischaracterizes an opponent.
It is hateful to trivialize a person's identity; to claim that homosexuality is a "trial", that must be overcome. It's dehumanizing, and it's hateful.
MrCrowbar
Jul 12, 08:11 AM
I wish I could say "I'm getting a woodie", but I can't right now... There are people watching :p
Serously I think we'll see woodcrest in the MacPro for sure. Apple wants to stick with the "fastest desktop computer" I think.
Serously I think we'll see woodcrest in the MacPro for sure. Apple wants to stick with the "fastest desktop computer" I think.
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.
ftrtrk
Sep 12, 04:47 PM
why the h can't they release it yet? Jobs was using it perfectly on stage, it looks great, this is confusing.
CaoCao
Mar 26, 01:19 AM
WTF? Who said that anyone should be copulating in public? You have completely lost this argument at this point. Not to mention your mind...This has just gotten stupid.
I'm commenting on arbitrary rules
You're joking right? That's a heck of a statement you make there. Is that based on any fact? Or just your ignorance?
I'm assuming that by stability you mean children?
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.
Marriage should be about more than love, the people should be fully committed to working through problems instead of divorce. My Grandfather's wedding was arranged, this year they are celebrating 50 years of marriage and they love each other. Love can grow or even start if nurtured.
The Constitution of the United States forbids tyranny of the majority by denying the government the power to deprive anyone of liberty without a compelling state interest in doing so. A powerful majority may not simply outlaw an unpopular minority.
However it isn't tyranny because the government isn't actually depriving them of liberty, merely not supporting them.
I'm commenting on arbitrary rules
You're joking right? That's a heck of a statement you make there. Is that based on any fact? Or just your ignorance?
I'm assuming that by stability you mean children?
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.
Marriage should be about more than love, the people should be fully committed to working through problems instead of divorce. My Grandfather's wedding was arranged, this year they are celebrating 50 years of marriage and they love each other. Love can grow or even start if nurtured.
The Constitution of the United States forbids tyranny of the majority by denying the government the power to deprive anyone of liberty without a compelling state interest in doing so. A powerful majority may not simply outlaw an unpopular minority.
However it isn't tyranny because the government isn't actually depriving them of liberty, merely not supporting them.
cult hero
Apr 13, 12:08 AM
Hard to take anyone seriously as a professional who uses Adobe. Avid, sure, but the industry has moved to Final Cut Pro, at least the part of the industry I interface with.
You calling this Final Cut a "toy" after it was just presented to a room full of professionals who loved it seems odd. Why the need to diminish it when it is clear that if you werent' there, there's much we don't yet know?
Dude, didn't you get the memo? All the cool kids around here hate on Apple. Duh. (Why they hang around a site dedicated to Apple products is beyond me.)
You calling this Final Cut a "toy" after it was just presented to a room full of professionals who loved it seems odd. Why the need to diminish it when it is clear that if you werent' there, there's much we don't yet know?
Dude, didn't you get the memo? All the cool kids around here hate on Apple. Duh. (Why they hang around a site dedicated to Apple products is beyond me.)
bartelby
Apr 15, 09:25 AM
Why on earth are people marking this as 'negative'?!?
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
peharri
Sep 21, 03:04 PM
One thing puzzles me though - the iTV is not a complicated piece of kit, hardly any more so than the mini or any other Mac. So, why did Apple pre-announce earlier this month for release early next year, and not release a finished product?
Well, perhaps it is complicated. I'd imagine the software side in particular will need a lot of work. If, as promised, it supports all of Quicktime, then there has to be an environment capable of running Apple's core QT code. (I'm finding it unlikely there's a full version of Mac OS X in there though would be delighted to be proven wrong.)
I don't think all the pieces were ready. At the same time, I feel Apple needed to promote it as early as possible. It wasn't clear where iTunes was heading and the number of people who want to watch movies on their laptops and iPods is so comparatively small, I think most studios didn't see a point in supporting the system. They had to announce iTV, if only to tell the studios they're serious.
Well, perhaps it is complicated. I'd imagine the software side in particular will need a lot of work. If, as promised, it supports all of Quicktime, then there has to be an environment capable of running Apple's core QT code. (I'm finding it unlikely there's a full version of Mac OS X in there though would be delighted to be proven wrong.)
I don't think all the pieces were ready. At the same time, I feel Apple needed to promote it as early as possible. It wasn't clear where iTunes was heading and the number of people who want to watch movies on their laptops and iPods is so comparatively small, I think most studios didn't see a point in supporting the system. They had to announce iTV, if only to tell the studios they're serious.
leekohler
Mar 25, 03:39 PM
You have to prove the rights existed in the first place otherwise I could argue the government is denying my right to drive a tank
No- you have to prove why I should be denied that right. It clearly exists.
You guys continue to ignore that marriage is in fact, a right. That has already been proven to you. And again, quit comparing us to weapons of mass destruction or murderers. I'm sick of it.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
I am not lost. I know exactly where I am. I am also not a sheep. I don't blindly follow any leader or religion.
No- you have to prove why I should be denied that right. It clearly exists.
You guys continue to ignore that marriage is in fact, a right. That has already been proven to you. And again, quit comparing us to weapons of mass destruction or murderers. I'm sick of it.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
I am not lost. I know exactly where I am. I am also not a sheep. I don't blindly follow any leader or religion.
Povilas
Oct 7, 12:03 PM
Android is a mobile OS. iPhone is a device. Android is and will be used in many devices by many manufacturers. iPhone is only one device, but if you add iPod Touch which runs the same OS I don't think Android can surpass it by 2012.
robbyx
Feb 28, 01:02 AM
Erm.. you're being closed minded.
starflyer
Apr 15, 10:58 AM
and 8 morons hit the "negative" button. That's why videos like this are necessary. Because there are a lot of stupid people out there who don't understand the world as it is.
Maybe they hit negative because they think it's sad that something like this even has to exist.
Maybe they hit negative because they think it's sad that something like this even has to exist.
