Shrek
Sep 26, 08:09 PM
Come one, come all, and let's set our expectations high for Apple Computer and its partners. My philosophy is that if we don't do this, someday we'll be stuck with 2GHz machines with 4GB of RAM (max), and PCs will be at 10GHz with 20GB of RAM (max). We cannot wait for Apple, IBM, Moto, and others to sit on their butts while we keep waiting for the next best thing only to find out that it's not so great. If we do set our expectations high, we may not get there, but we'll get a lot closer to it than just the occasional speed bump. Set our expectations high and we'll get the best we can get. Set our expectations low, and eventually we will all be running away from Apple because we will feel like they cheated us out of our money. We need something BIG. Now, now, now!
We know Apple listens to our requests: We asked for a 17" iMac, and they gave us that; we wanted a Superdrive on the iMac and eMac and they handed it to us; we wanted a 20GB iPod and we received it.
WE MUST UNITE as a family of believers in Apple's vision, but this time with a passion for the best of the best of the best!
AIM HIGH, APPLE FORCE!!! :D :D :D
We know Apple listens to our requests: We asked for a 17" iMac, and they gave us that; we wanted a Superdrive on the iMac and eMac and they handed it to us; we wanted a 20GB iPod and we received it.
WE MUST UNITE as a family of believers in Apple's vision, but this time with a passion for the best of the best of the best!
AIM HIGH, APPLE FORCE!!! :D :D :D
Dreadnought
Jun 10, 06:09 PM
Now we're talking! Hi to the new folders, and good work adding more machines. Let's kick some SilentPCReview and Dutch Power Cows (especially looking forward on overtaking them because I'm Dutch!! :D ).
alex_ant
Oct 29, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by springscansing
Whatever.. why NOT go to Intel? Think about it.
You'd have the exact same speeds as the competition, guaranteed. Neutral.
BUT, you'd also have OS X, and great looking machines. If people see a ugly machine, and a beautiful one, same speed, they get the nicer one.
Even when the nicer one costs hundreds more? The public at large is not buying Apple's nice machines now. They wouldn't buy Apple's nice machines if they had Intel inside either.
Plus OS X is an easy sell over XP. They could target all advertising at this one thing.
OS X is an easy sell over XP? I don't think so. Only for geeks and Mac lovers. OS X doesn't run Windows software, therefore, it's no contest. Public perception of Microsoft outside the geek world is very positive.
Plus, I'm not a programmer, but I'd assume running Intel chips would make porting programs MUCH easier. I might be wrong here, but I don't think I am... there would be a lot greater incentive to develop for mac, since it's not too much more work.
You're mostly wrong, except in the case of programs which have hardware-specific optimizations. All Windows apps would still have to be ported over to an OS X-native API.
Intel would mean much more mac software, same speed as the competition, better OS, better systems in general, etc.
Actually it would mean fewer differences between Macs and PCs, leading to less ability for consumers to differentiate the two, leading them to buy even FEWER Macs, requiring Macs to come down in price by a huge amount just to stay competitive, obliterating Apple's margins and eventually driving them out of business. Intel can suck it as far as I'm concerned. The day Apple switches to Intel will the be the day I switch to the Amiga.
Whatever.. why NOT go to Intel? Think about it.
You'd have the exact same speeds as the competition, guaranteed. Neutral.
BUT, you'd also have OS X, and great looking machines. If people see a ugly machine, and a beautiful one, same speed, they get the nicer one.
Even when the nicer one costs hundreds more? The public at large is not buying Apple's nice machines now. They wouldn't buy Apple's nice machines if they had Intel inside either.
Plus OS X is an easy sell over XP. They could target all advertising at this one thing.
OS X is an easy sell over XP? I don't think so. Only for geeks and Mac lovers. OS X doesn't run Windows software, therefore, it's no contest. Public perception of Microsoft outside the geek world is very positive.
Plus, I'm not a programmer, but I'd assume running Intel chips would make porting programs MUCH easier. I might be wrong here, but I don't think I am... there would be a lot greater incentive to develop for mac, since it's not too much more work.
You're mostly wrong, except in the case of programs which have hardware-specific optimizations. All Windows apps would still have to be ported over to an OS X-native API.
Intel would mean much more mac software, same speed as the competition, better OS, better systems in general, etc.
Actually it would mean fewer differences between Macs and PCs, leading to less ability for consumers to differentiate the two, leading them to buy even FEWER Macs, requiring Macs to come down in price by a huge amount just to stay competitive, obliterating Apple's margins and eventually driving them out of business. Intel can suck it as far as I'm concerned. The day Apple switches to Intel will the be the day I switch to the Amiga.
shadowfax0
Oct 21, 08:19 PM
You two are correct, 64-bit won't make much of a difference for the average person, but for people doing Final Cut, Maya, Mathematica (Mathematica might be something we should keep our eyes on, I'm getting excited already!) and things of that sort will. At this point in time, there won't be much if any difference, but the difference will be seen when in a few years when a large amount of programs are written to take advantage of the vast amounts of memory that 64-bit has to offer. Also, I think we may see Apple make a big leap into the pro video market (like Hollywood professional) being that the 64-bit will allow for a port of specialized programs, this will have the same effect on the video industry as OS X did on the scientific community; people will no longer need 3 computers to do one job. Instead of having your Mac for video editing alone, and then having to port that over to your SGI for some heavy duty work, it will now be able to have it all there. I gotta say Apple has alot of the bases covered, and although what I have said may not happen in huge places making multi-million dollar films, I have a feeling it will for smaller/mid-sized production houses it will have a profound impact. (Video edit -> use shake/Maya/Photoshop/any other effects program -> finish in Final Cut -> then one has the option to use Cinema Tools if in high fps ->Edit audio right there using anythign you'd like -> then DVD Studio Pro -> and for people on a tight(er) budget, that's you whole movie, right there!)
vniow
Sep 12, 09:12 PM
I don't think we'll ee jaguar or any version of it on any stereo soon. Phillips is just incorporating the Rendevous technology, not the entire os. :)
xenafu
Oct 13, 12:54 PM
*downloads it*
*looks for something new*
*finds nothing*
*isn't surprised*
*deletes* *destroys*
*opens iChat*
*smiles*
*looks for something new*
*finds nothing*
*isn't surprised*
*deletes* *destroys*
*opens iChat*
*smiles*
Prom1
Sep 22, 05:39 PM
swexplorer,
Indeed the speed is 723kbps but the headset profile doesnt support that kinda speed in Bluetooth, its actually alot slower than that. With the aid of compression and streaming digital voice, music might be a little unclear for BT version 1.1b.
go to the bluetooth SIG site to find out more of what the data rates are on BT headset profile for BT version 1.1b.
Indeed the speed is 723kbps but the headset profile doesnt support that kinda speed in Bluetooth, its actually alot slower than that. With the aid of compression and streaming digital voice, music might be a little unclear for BT version 1.1b.
go to the bluetooth SIG site to find out more of what the data rates are on BT headset profile for BT version 1.1b.
job
Jun 5, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by vniow
What was the avatar (Mac processor related) that got everybody all riled up?
I have absolutely no idea.
I can think of a few 'tars that have been a bit risque (the cat avatar), a few odd ones (freaky tadpole anyone?), but not one stands out.
Give us a hint. ;)
What was the avatar (Mac processor related) that got everybody all riled up?
I have absolutely no idea.
I can think of a few 'tars that have been a bit risque (the cat avatar), a few odd ones (freaky tadpole anyone?), but not one stands out.
Give us a hint. ;)
medea
Nov 1, 06:04 PM
All I can find is the program Xgrid with some info here http://www.hallogram.com/xgrid/
"The most powerful data bound grid you will ever use, combining the ultimate in database support with the power and versatility of a spreadsheet.
XGrid sets the standard, providing the combining a data grid with superb database access and the power of a spreadsheet application in a single component. XGrid offers Excel-compatibility offering the ultimate in developer control and flexibility while providing a familiar user interface.
Performance is the key factor with XGrid, providing a complex set of functionality but with the streamline use of component technology, achieving the best of both worlds and unsurpassed performance matched by no other product on the market. "
Perhaps Apple bought the company that produces this?
The only thing I could find on the program at the Manufacturers (greentree) site is the press release http://www.green-tree.com/homelinks.asp?page=pressroom
otherwise it looks like maybe they stopped making it.
"The most powerful data bound grid you will ever use, combining the ultimate in database support with the power and versatility of a spreadsheet.
XGrid sets the standard, providing the combining a data grid with superb database access and the power of a spreadsheet application in a single component. XGrid offers Excel-compatibility offering the ultimate in developer control and flexibility while providing a familiar user interface.
Performance is the key factor with XGrid, providing a complex set of functionality but with the streamline use of component technology, achieving the best of both worlds and unsurpassed performance matched by no other product on the market. "
Perhaps Apple bought the company that produces this?
The only thing I could find on the program at the Manufacturers (greentree) site is the press release http://www.green-tree.com/homelinks.asp?page=pressroom
otherwise it looks like maybe they stopped making it.
MacRumorUser
Mar 21, 10:46 AM
Back on topic. Cooler 360 and not the original DVD drive = more silent 360? I find my original to be a little bit too noisy as I often play it with low sound volume. I'll be waiting for more official info.
But seeing as though the currently manufactured machines are using the quieter drive anyway - all were talking about with this rev is a bigger HDD and hdmi.
I still think it will be hilarious if that Engadget article which already admited was a picture of the black dev kit is wrong and all this bickering is over nothing :D
go on microsoft.. make me laugh :p :)
But seeing as though the currently manufactured machines are using the quieter drive anyway - all were talking about with this rev is a bigger HDD and hdmi.
I still think it will be hilarious if that Engadget article which already admited was a picture of the black dev kit is wrong and all this bickering is over nothing :D
go on microsoft.. make me laugh :p :)
holmesf
Oct 12, 12:51 PM
I don't like all these threads and rumors about Mac's and TV's. Mac's are a creative platform. We hold the highest positions in graphics, audio, and video editing. This is both in terms of proffesional power software and consumer ease of use software. Television is a highly uncreative and zombie creating invention that enforces pop culture and consumerism. In my mind, the two don't belong together. TV just doesn't fit the "think differen't" image of Apple. And as I've said many times, Steve hates TV so it'll never happen.
dotcomlarry
Oct 21, 10:01 AM
A workstation in this sense is a desk, not a computer.
mad jew
May 30, 11:30 PM
I would have been doing something productive, but I had to reply to your comment.
Nice. :D
If I do find any stats about this, I'll post them here. In the meantime, we can speculate that we Mac users spend our time more productively and perhaps we waste our time more productively too.
There's nothing better than efficient time wasting according to 97% of all mad jews.
Nice. :D
If I do find any stats about this, I'll post them here. In the meantime, we can speculate that we Mac users spend our time more productively and perhaps we waste our time more productively too.
There's nothing better than efficient time wasting according to 97% of all mad jews.
Bobak
Jun 1, 07:20 PM
looks like they need to pay their godaddy fees
chmorley
Oct 17, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by MacHack
Apple Computer, Inc.'s Internet suite of products with a common look and feel, offering easy drag-and-drop control across different Internet services, as well as tight integration with the Mac OS and Macintosh OpenDoc-compliant applications. Cyberdog's browser, mail reader, Internet address notebook and news reading components are completely integrated with one common interface to accomplish Internet tasks. Cyberdog's integration with the Mac OS and Macintosh applications embeds Internet resources throughout the user's work, making Internet connectivity an extension of the desktop.
What the heck is this? No, it's nothing like .Mac. It was a browser that was part of a project called OpenDoc. OpenDoc developers would write "parts" that could be combined into a single application using drag and drop. It was unbelievably progressive. There is nothing like it now. While some have argued that VisualBasic is somewhat similar (in that modules can be combined into a single app by developers), the truth is that they are nothing alike.
For example, you could drag and drop together a word processing app that can also e-mail and edit photos. While this might sounds useless to some, the idea was revolutionary--allowing users to decide what features to include in the software they use.
I'm not sure why it failed, but there was a lot of talk at the time about copyrght issues. Imagine M$ tolerating someone actually adding useful features to Word--or taking them away. I think the idea was maybe a bit too far from the way everyone else used computers to be acceptable.
And this guy's a freak.
Chris
Apple Computer, Inc.'s Internet suite of products with a common look and feel, offering easy drag-and-drop control across different Internet services, as well as tight integration with the Mac OS and Macintosh OpenDoc-compliant applications. Cyberdog's browser, mail reader, Internet address notebook and news reading components are completely integrated with one common interface to accomplish Internet tasks. Cyberdog's integration with the Mac OS and Macintosh applications embeds Internet resources throughout the user's work, making Internet connectivity an extension of the desktop.
What the heck is this? No, it's nothing like .Mac. It was a browser that was part of a project called OpenDoc. OpenDoc developers would write "parts" that could be combined into a single application using drag and drop. It was unbelievably progressive. There is nothing like it now. While some have argued that VisualBasic is somewhat similar (in that modules can be combined into a single app by developers), the truth is that they are nothing alike.
For example, you could drag and drop together a word processing app that can also e-mail and edit photos. While this might sounds useless to some, the idea was revolutionary--allowing users to decide what features to include in the software they use.
I'm not sure why it failed, but there was a lot of talk at the time about copyrght issues. Imagine M$ tolerating someone actually adding useful features to Word--or taking them away. I think the idea was maybe a bit too far from the way everyone else used computers to be acceptable.
And this guy's a freak.
Chris
redAPPLE
Mar 19, 04:03 PM
No big deal. The cellphone companies keep recorded phone messages plus all phonebook and data/photo entries in a large database. AOL has been keeping a record for years, they are just now telling you they are waiving your privacy.
wha? this isn't true, is it?
wha? this isn't true, is it?
puckhead193
Apr 19, 11:08 PM
a little late for this posts its only April 20th ;)
Yea i was a little pissed off that nothing happened
Yea i was a little pissed off that nothing happened
Fatal1ty
Mar 24, 09:40 PM
ok you guys i've been researching this and i came across a post at onmac.net here's the link http://forum.onmac.net/archive/index.php/t-1532.html
for the lazy ones this is a posters response to a problem similar to ours:
"you need to edit the video.con file to set it to the res of your desktop change the file ext from Video.con to Video.txt then edit it and save it then change the file ext back to Video.con
I doubt its a DirectX error as that normally throws up a (dx blah blah error ) window but to make sure dl the latest dx9 if you want to bypass the WGA downloader look at http://www.uneasysilence.com/archive/2006/06/6859/
it lives in /Program Files/Electronic Arts/Battlefield2/mods/BF2/Settings/Profiles/Custom/Video.con
that path may not be exact as im doing it from memory but the file you need to edit is the Video.con file so you could just search for all your Video.con files and edit the resolution in there (def 800 600 32 0 ) mine is set to 1680 1050 32 0 as its on my 17" macbook.
you need to do the same if you want to play the BF 2142
~SIMPLE METHOD~
Right-click your Battlefield 2 desktop icon and click "Properties". Under the "Target field", add this: +szx 1280 +szy 800
This will force Battlefield 2's resolution into the resolution 13" MacBooks use.
Tell me if it works! (i cant test right now)
Good luck w/Battlefield 2!
for the lazy ones this is a posters response to a problem similar to ours:
"you need to edit the video.con file to set it to the res of your desktop change the file ext from Video.con to Video.txt then edit it and save it then change the file ext back to Video.con
I doubt its a DirectX error as that normally throws up a (dx blah blah error ) window but to make sure dl the latest dx9 if you want to bypass the WGA downloader look at http://www.uneasysilence.com/archive/2006/06/6859/
it lives in /Program Files/Electronic Arts/Battlefield2/mods/BF2/Settings/Profiles/Custom/Video.con
that path may not be exact as im doing it from memory but the file you need to edit is the Video.con file so you could just search for all your Video.con files and edit the resolution in there (def 800 600 32 0 ) mine is set to 1680 1050 32 0 as its on my 17" macbook.
you need to do the same if you want to play the BF 2142
~SIMPLE METHOD~
Right-click your Battlefield 2 desktop icon and click "Properties". Under the "Target field", add this: +szx 1280 +szy 800
This will force Battlefield 2's resolution into the resolution 13" MacBooks use.
Tell me if it works! (i cant test right now)
Good luck w/Battlefield 2!
mrgreen4242
Jul 30, 01:53 PM
I fold on PCs at work. I am the system admin, and the entire IT department for that matter, and I have started installing FaH whenever I have to do some work on a machine and I know that the owner isn't working the machine very hard/using it for some critical process. I have considered getting approval from my boss, but as they generally ask for my approval to install things at work, I think I am in the good.
I drew the line with our server, which I will get permission to install FaH on, if I ever do. It'd be a great folder, though, dual 2ghz Xeons... The desktop machines are used almost exclusively for Word, Excel, email, etc. There really isn't anything critical even stored on most of them (and definitely not on any of the ones I have installed FaH on).
I actually only fold at work, as my mini has a fan that scales up and down with CPU use, so running FaH makes it quite loud at home. The Dells at work have a CPU fan that runs at a steady rpm regardless, so I don't have to deal with any extra noise...
I'm also in the process of trying to get some machines donated to us (I work for a non-profit company) that will become 'spares' but while hey are waiting around to be deployed they will fold. :)
I drew the line with our server, which I will get permission to install FaH on, if I ever do. It'd be a great folder, though, dual 2ghz Xeons... The desktop machines are used almost exclusively for Word, Excel, email, etc. There really isn't anything critical even stored on most of them (and definitely not on any of the ones I have installed FaH on).
I actually only fold at work, as my mini has a fan that scales up and down with CPU use, so running FaH makes it quite loud at home. The Dells at work have a CPU fan that runs at a steady rpm regardless, so I don't have to deal with any extra noise...
I'm also in the process of trying to get some machines donated to us (I work for a non-profit company) that will become 'spares' but while hey are waiting around to be deployed they will fold. :)
nagromme
Sep 15, 11:41 PM
I like FireFox. Not enough to tempt me away from Safari, but if I was on Windows and stuck with IE, I'd jump ship for FF for sure!
Once FF is 1.0, I plan to recommend it to my Windows friends. Maybe throw a copy of it for Windows on my camera's flash card, alongside the Windows iTunes :)
Once FF is 1.0, I plan to recommend it to my Windows friends. Maybe throw a copy of it for Windows on my camera's flash card, alongside the Windows iTunes :)
2nyRiggz
Mar 18, 06:20 PM
Blah blah
Why are you getting all worked up...its not like 8.9 is not a GREAT score....A lot of people didn't think its a perfect 10 or a 9.6. It's an opinion and only opinion that should matter to you is yours.
I thought it was justified.
Bless
Why are you getting all worked up...its not like 8.9 is not a GREAT score....A lot of people didn't think its a perfect 10 or a 9.6. It's an opinion and only opinion that should matter to you is yours.
I thought it was justified.
Bless
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.
aidanpendragon
Mar 22, 09:05 AM
There have been reports of GPU's burning up from the heat while on standby.
rendezvouscp
Apr 3, 12:24 PM
Unless it's been updated recently, the Mac version of FF is really buggy. For example, start a download, then close the browser window. Now open a new browser window. See the problem? :eek:
I have a copy of Camino on my system which I use for the occasional page that won't open in Safari. It's easy to load it too - just highlight the page address and press Cmd-Shift-U.
Wow, never noticed that. Well, I don't really like FF on the Mac because of its bugginess. I've noticed it has some weird problems with JS, and various other things. The review wasn't that great.
-Chase
I have a copy of Camino on my system which I use for the occasional page that won't open in Safari. It's easy to load it too - just highlight the page address and press Cmd-Shift-U.
Wow, never noticed that. Well, I don't really like FF on the Mac because of its bugginess. I've noticed it has some weird problems with JS, and various other things. The review wasn't that great.
-Chase