Rodimus Prime
Oct 7, 04:33 PM
Far as jailbreaking, to put it in perspective, look how bad Verizon cripples ALL their phones on release. Yea I have to hack the iphone to install maybe 5 choice apps I can't get otherwise, but at least my phone didn't have its GPS and bluetooth disabled, RAM cut in half, wi-fi disabled so I'd have to use 3g even though I'm at home, etc
And how does carrier matter at all in your argument. Sorry but that entire augment there has no meaning in this debate.
And how does carrier matter at all in your argument. Sorry but that entire augment there has no meaning in this debate.
bradl
Mar 18, 02:01 AM
Wow... was multi-tasking supported that early, or did we not get that until 4.0. It's early here in Florida and I can't remember.
But hey, if its working for you... go with it!
No. it wasn't.
I rarely use it, and when I do, it is work related. I went the MyWi route after the BenM hole was patched up in iOS > 3.1.
BL.
But hey, if its working for you... go with it!
No. it wasn't.
I rarely use it, and when I do, it is work related. I went the MyWi route after the BenM hole was patched up in iOS > 3.1.
BL.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 01:23 PM
Except for the fastest growing contingent of Christians in the world, the evangelicals. Like I said, you are all finger pointing and being smug in your own belief as to the true interpretation. How laughable. If you are all true Christians, why is there more than one church?
Most evangelicals are pretty mainstream.
There's more than one church because there are differences in beliefs that were pointed enough at one time or another to result in schisms. Sometimes very tiny, subtle differences. But few of these groups will accuse each other of not being Christian. You'll find a few groups here and there.
Most evangelicals are pretty mainstream.
There's more than one church because there are differences in beliefs that were pointed enough at one time or another to result in schisms. Sometimes very tiny, subtle differences. But few of these groups will accuse each other of not being Christian. You'll find a few groups here and there.
jiggie2g
Jul 12, 05:29 PM
jiggy:
your thinking is exactly why most pc's suck, dell ect choose components that are "good enough" or choose some unsuitable cpu because it sounds fast, woodcest makes the most sense to go into the mac pro, conroe into the imac merom into the mbp simple as.
just because something is not for you does not mean how you want it is how it should be, your a kid who likes playing with pc hardware and likes components with "big numbers" and overclockability, and while a quad would be wasted on you it'd be great for people who actually buy mac pro's/powermacs.
you give pc users a bad name it's not the other way around.
Oh and Apple dosen't go to Samsung and Micron for it's ram like everyone else , or Pioneer/Toshiba/Matsushita for the DVD Burner , how bout Maxtor/Seagate for the Hard drives , Apple dosen't go to Samsung/LGPhillips for it's LCD Panels just like Dell and HP. now Intel for it's CPU/NorthBridge chipsets. c'mon it called a con they all shop at the same store dude. Newegg..lol
the only thing Apple about ur mac will be the Pretty case and OSX. Other then that it's just another PEECEE.
your thinking is exactly why most pc's suck, dell ect choose components that are "good enough" or choose some unsuitable cpu because it sounds fast, woodcest makes the most sense to go into the mac pro, conroe into the imac merom into the mbp simple as.
just because something is not for you does not mean how you want it is how it should be, your a kid who likes playing with pc hardware and likes components with "big numbers" and overclockability, and while a quad would be wasted on you it'd be great for people who actually buy mac pro's/powermacs.
you give pc users a bad name it's not the other way around.
Oh and Apple dosen't go to Samsung and Micron for it's ram like everyone else , or Pioneer/Toshiba/Matsushita for the DVD Burner , how bout Maxtor/Seagate for the Hard drives , Apple dosen't go to Samsung/LGPhillips for it's LCD Panels just like Dell and HP. now Intel for it's CPU/NorthBridge chipsets. c'mon it called a con they all shop at the same store dude. Newegg..lol
the only thing Apple about ur mac will be the Pretty case and OSX. Other then that it's just another PEECEE.
CuttyShark
Apr 12, 11:31 PM
Seeing somethign that allows one to more quikly develop a professional product as being "toylike" *because* it is more efficient, in favor of poor quality tools, is not a perspective that I associate with those of a professional-- who is more concerned with the end result than protecting sunk educational costs invested to overcome terrible usability.
I never said I was a professional. :p I just said I use those tools for the jobs I have. They seems to get pro results for me and the clients. \shrugs/
Cheers!
I never said I was a professional. :p I just said I use those tools for the jobs I have. They seems to get pro results for me and the clients. \shrugs/
Cheers!
MovieCutter
Apr 12, 10:14 PM
If this really is to non-linear editing as Henry Ford was to the automobile, it's time to learn how to drive this thing like a Formula One driver...because everyone's going to THINK they know how to use this.
leekohler
Mar 25, 02:54 PM
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
(emphasis added)
Skunk already quoted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16, so I don't think I need to quote that again.
People also have to get gun licenses, but that is clearly a right under the Constitution.
Licenses do more than extend a privilege; they can also be helpful in administering the rights that we have.
Actually, you might depending on when and where you wanted to speak. Parades need permits and most large protests have to be cleared beforehand so that traffic can be allowed to flow around it. All of these are handled by licenses.
That isn't what's at issue in same-sex marriage. The issue is whether the criteria themselves are a violation of equal protection (which they unequivocally are).
It could, for example, be a requirement that in order to drive a Class C vehicle, one must be Buddhist. This requirement would deny others with the same ability to drive a license to drive and it would deny everyone who wasn't Buddhist equal protection under the law.
Similarly, a gay or lesbian couple is just as capable of producing a loving household with shared duties and responsibilities, and yet they are excluded from the rights of marriage based on nothing more than old fashioned prejudices.
Funny how they always run when proven wrong. Just once, I would like to see someone admit they were wrong in here. It sure would be nice. I've done it before, that's for sure.
(emphasis added)
Skunk already quoted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16, so I don't think I need to quote that again.
People also have to get gun licenses, but that is clearly a right under the Constitution.
Licenses do more than extend a privilege; they can also be helpful in administering the rights that we have.
Actually, you might depending on when and where you wanted to speak. Parades need permits and most large protests have to be cleared beforehand so that traffic can be allowed to flow around it. All of these are handled by licenses.
That isn't what's at issue in same-sex marriage. The issue is whether the criteria themselves are a violation of equal protection (which they unequivocally are).
It could, for example, be a requirement that in order to drive a Class C vehicle, one must be Buddhist. This requirement would deny others with the same ability to drive a license to drive and it would deny everyone who wasn't Buddhist equal protection under the law.
Similarly, a gay or lesbian couple is just as capable of producing a loving household with shared duties and responsibilities, and yet they are excluded from the rights of marriage based on nothing more than old fashioned prejudices.
Funny how they always run when proven wrong. Just once, I would like to see someone admit they were wrong in here. It sure would be nice. I've done it before, that's for sure.
AJsAWiz
Sep 2, 01:25 PM
:D:D:D
The happiest dat of
Great! :) Hope you come back and let us know how the service is and how it compares to AT&T. Which phone did you get?
[QUOTE=drapacioli;10977661]Is it just certain phones that get dropped calls? I have AT&T and when I demoed the iPhone in store the only phone call I tried to make with it was a dropped call. But my current phone, the Samsung Captivate, I have never even had a low signal, let alone a dropped call.
You might have a point. I've been side by side with another person (also an AT&T subscriber) who has a Nokia. I have no or low bars and they have bars.
The happiest dat of
Great! :) Hope you come back and let us know how the service is and how it compares to AT&T. Which phone did you get?
[QUOTE=drapacioli;10977661]Is it just certain phones that get dropped calls? I have AT&T and when I demoed the iPhone in store the only phone call I tried to make with it was a dropped call. But my current phone, the Samsung Captivate, I have never even had a low signal, let alone a dropped call.
You might have a point. I've been side by side with another person (also an AT&T subscriber) who has a Nokia. I have no or low bars and they have bars.
CalBoy
Apr 22, 08:35 PM
There are arguments and counter-arguments to both camps, which is why I choose to be agnostos. In the face of a dearth of evidence it's more rational to withhold judgment than leap to an extreme position.
In science when there is a dearth of evidence for something, you fail to reject the null hypothesis (which is that hypothesis x is incorrect).
If I wanted to make a claim about something, say that two bricks tied together will fall at the same rate as a single brick, I first have to make this my working hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that what I'm asserting is not true (in this case the null is that the bricks will fall at different rates). It's up to me to provide the evidence. If there isn't enough (or any) evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
When it comes to religion, it is the theologian who is making the claim. Thus, his working hypothesis is, "God exists." In searching for evidence, however, we come up with nothing. Thus we must fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is, "God does not exist."
Agnosticism is really the position that the an affirmative statement on the matter of deities is impossible to know. It doesn't have a rational basis in logic or science, thought it might make some people more comfortable with their skepticism.
Atheism is the position that, based on currently available evidence, there is no basis to consider any deity to be real. This could change as new evidence comes to light, of course. That is a quality you will not find in theism or agnosticism.
In science when there is a dearth of evidence for something, you fail to reject the null hypothesis (which is that hypothesis x is incorrect).
If I wanted to make a claim about something, say that two bricks tied together will fall at the same rate as a single brick, I first have to make this my working hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that what I'm asserting is not true (in this case the null is that the bricks will fall at different rates). It's up to me to provide the evidence. If there isn't enough (or any) evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
When it comes to religion, it is the theologian who is making the claim. Thus, his working hypothesis is, "God exists." In searching for evidence, however, we come up with nothing. Thus we must fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is, "God does not exist."
Agnosticism is really the position that the an affirmative statement on the matter of deities is impossible to know. It doesn't have a rational basis in logic or science, thought it might make some people more comfortable with their skepticism.
Atheism is the position that, based on currently available evidence, there is no basis to consider any deity to be real. This could change as new evidence comes to light, of course. That is a quality you will not find in theism or agnosticism.
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 04:44 PM
... and because of the US preventing alternative sources we are depending on Russia which had been a consistent supplier for more than half a century
A deal for the Berlin Wall? :rolleyes:
A deal for the Berlin Wall? :rolleyes:
Cutwolf
Mar 18, 12:10 PM
Some helpful quotes from the modmyi thread:
-------
I helped my boss through this one... I had him call AT&T and explain that he received a message about something called "tethering" and to act dumb and explain that he is a heavy pandora and Netflix user and doesn't understand why he's going to be billed more for it. Bottom line they couldn't prove it so they apologized and removed issue from his account with no changes.
Good luck to everyone. (my boss was on 4.2.1 and he is using about 25gb per month)
AT&T is hoping people will either ignore the message or call to apologize (Don't act guilty and you'll be fine)
--------
I told AT&T that I stream Sirius all day. They said my plan can stay the same since i don't "tether" lol
-------
-------
I helped my boss through this one... I had him call AT&T and explain that he received a message about something called "tethering" and to act dumb and explain that he is a heavy pandora and Netflix user and doesn't understand why he's going to be billed more for it. Bottom line they couldn't prove it so they apologized and removed issue from his account with no changes.
Good luck to everyone. (my boss was on 4.2.1 and he is using about 25gb per month)
AT&T is hoping people will either ignore the message or call to apologize (Don't act guilty and you'll be fine)
--------
I told AT&T that I stream Sirius all day. They said my plan can stay the same since i don't "tether" lol
-------
iJohnHenry
Apr 23, 07:58 PM
Er?
Yarweh uses Windows
Allah is still on CP/M
The Buddah uses Unix
And Atheists use Macs?
Yahweh uses stone tablets.
Allah uses an abacus.
Buddha uses food.
Yes, and leaders, not followers, use Macs.
:p
Yarweh uses Windows
Allah is still on CP/M
The Buddah uses Unix
And Atheists use Macs?
Yahweh uses stone tablets.
Allah uses an abacus.
Buddha uses food.
Yes, and leaders, not followers, use Macs.
:p
macfan881
Nov 5, 09:58 PM
http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2009/11/05/iphone-vs-droid-multitouch-keyboard-showdown-video/1#c22887995
Verizon Fails at multi touch keyboard.
Verizon Fails at multi touch keyboard.
Dippo
Mar 18, 03:15 PM
Personally I think this is great! Any sort of DRM sucks, even if it is rather "liberal". That's like giving all your customers in your shop a pair of handcuffs to prevent theft, and saying "but these cuffs are really comfortable".
I can't see anything really wrong with this program.
You still have to buy the music!
The labels need to get over trying to shove this DRM crap down our throats.
It will never work! This has been demostrated time and time again.
Of course Apple will shut it down soon.
I can't see anything really wrong with this program.
You still have to buy the music!
The labels need to get over trying to shove this DRM crap down our throats.
It will never work! This has been demostrated time and time again.
Of course Apple will shut it down soon.
KnightWRX
May 2, 04:11 PM
No one is pointing fingers or bickering. I'm responding to your question. The only technical requirement that was satisfied is that the user had "Open "safe" files after downloading" selected. An app installer is not unsafe. Whether the app to be installed is safe or not is another matter, but the installer cannot harm your system or your user files, simply by launching. If you don't want apps... installers or otherwise... to launch after downloading, simply deselect that box.
Wait, the "Open Safe files" bit was for the zip archive, which runs it through Archive Utility. What then auto-executes an installer ? You're suggesting Safari somehow knows that the zip archive contains an installer and that it is indeed an installer and then executes it.
Do you have any proof of this ? I've been trying to get my hands on the zip archive itself to inspect it but no luck, as Google is now swamped with "news" about this thing that just rehashes what you just said.
Basically, the details you provide here are nothing I already don't know about the current situation, I am asking for more here. Not just "deselect" that box, but rather what else can be auto-executes and what else is considered "safe".
I don't use Safari, I'm not at risk, but I'd still like to know the details of this.
That's why I say you purposefully ignore my point. My point is let's dissect and understand this thing, not glance over it like the current news outlet, heck even Intego's description does. That's why I don't like Intego, they just spread FUD without ever explaining anything and mark everything as a "virus" (their Virus X-barrier says VIRUS FOUND! when it finds malware that isn't a virus...).
1. First, the file would need to be considered "safe" to be allowed to auto-download and auto-open, AND the browser would need to be set to allow this.
2. Then, like the case with the installer above, it would need to seek the user's permission to be installed. This again, required the complicity of the user, who would still need the administrator's password.
How can anything be considered safe in this scenario ? We have a compressed archive and an executable file. Both are rather unsafe. Especially the executable file. I don't care that it is an installer, no executable file is safe. What if the "installer" had some payload code on launch, before privilege escalation ?
This is what I'm interested in knowing, how is this thing packaged so that it gets auto-executed. You aren't answering my question either. I'm technical enough I think that I already understood what you and the Studios guy are "trying to explain to me", but you both fail to understand the underlying question :
Why is this thing auto-executing ? I know it's because Safari considers it safe since the user checked the safe box, that's in the article. I want to know why is an executable file being launched after a zip file was uncompressed and how does Safari know this is "safe" ?
Both of you are only repeating the same stuff that's in the media. I want the details, not the media overview. I want the archive itself if possible. Let's find it, dissect it, understand it. If Apple needs to modify some defaults, let's ask for that.
Wait, the "Open Safe files" bit was for the zip archive, which runs it through Archive Utility. What then auto-executes an installer ? You're suggesting Safari somehow knows that the zip archive contains an installer and that it is indeed an installer and then executes it.
Do you have any proof of this ? I've been trying to get my hands on the zip archive itself to inspect it but no luck, as Google is now swamped with "news" about this thing that just rehashes what you just said.
Basically, the details you provide here are nothing I already don't know about the current situation, I am asking for more here. Not just "deselect" that box, but rather what else can be auto-executes and what else is considered "safe".
I don't use Safari, I'm not at risk, but I'd still like to know the details of this.
That's why I say you purposefully ignore my point. My point is let's dissect and understand this thing, not glance over it like the current news outlet, heck even Intego's description does. That's why I don't like Intego, they just spread FUD without ever explaining anything and mark everything as a "virus" (their Virus X-barrier says VIRUS FOUND! when it finds malware that isn't a virus...).
1. First, the file would need to be considered "safe" to be allowed to auto-download and auto-open, AND the browser would need to be set to allow this.
2. Then, like the case with the installer above, it would need to seek the user's permission to be installed. This again, required the complicity of the user, who would still need the administrator's password.
How can anything be considered safe in this scenario ? We have a compressed archive and an executable file. Both are rather unsafe. Especially the executable file. I don't care that it is an installer, no executable file is safe. What if the "installer" had some payload code on launch, before privilege escalation ?
This is what I'm interested in knowing, how is this thing packaged so that it gets auto-executed. You aren't answering my question either. I'm technical enough I think that I already understood what you and the Studios guy are "trying to explain to me", but you both fail to understand the underlying question :
Why is this thing auto-executing ? I know it's because Safari considers it safe since the user checked the safe box, that's in the article. I want to know why is an executable file being launched after a zip file was uncompressed and how does Safari know this is "safe" ?
Both of you are only repeating the same stuff that's in the media. I want the details, not the media overview. I want the archive itself if possible. Let's find it, dissect it, understand it. If Apple needs to modify some defaults, let's ask for that.
OllyW
Apr 13, 02:41 AM
I bet the guy who destroyed iMovie 06 has something to do with this. Lets just hope I'm wrong.
Do you mean the same guy who led the team that created Final Cut Pro in the first place? ;)
Do you mean the same guy who led the team that created Final Cut Pro in the first place? ;)
w0by
Aug 23, 12:47 PM
Eh, I just blame AT&T for having the iPhone and not fixing their issues. I pay my ** $120 ** phone bill every month for my iPhone, and I don't even have unlimited calling/texting, so therefore AT&T needs to fix their crap.
redkamel
Aug 29, 06:57 PM
3 The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. ...
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
levitynyc
Apr 8, 10:26 PM
Ummm.... everyone that's into gaming HATES Activision.
eawmp1
Apr 23, 10:12 AM
Same here. Everyone at work knows too.
Two strikes for you as a gaytheist.
Two strikes for you as a gaytheist.
matticus008
Mar 19, 06:00 PM
He just wants to play his music on Linux, is there something wrong with that? Are you saying that Linux is bad, and Apple is good? Do you think that Apple is doing the right thing by not preventing these issues in the first place (by failing to open up technology standards or port multimedia software to other operating systems)? I really don't think that it would be terribly difficult to port iTunes or Quicktime to Linux.
Yes, there is something wrong with that. You agreed when you created your account that you would use iTunes. You as a citizen, agree not to break the laws. Using iTunes songs in Linux breaks both of those agreements. Linux is great (I'm a Linux sysadmin, as a matter of fact), but you know going into a purchase agreement that iTunes does not support Linux. Apple should make iTunes for Linux, sure. But violating the TOS and breaking laws left and right isn't really going to convince them to do it.
If you have Linux, then iTunes really isn't a legal option for you. Get your music elsewhere and write a letter to Apple, or use another computer for iTunes and use CDs or one of the thousands of network audio streaming packages available for Linux. You do not have the right to break DRM or to use something other than iTunes to get music from iTMS, period. It's that simple.
Yes, there is something wrong with that. You agreed when you created your account that you would use iTunes. You as a citizen, agree not to break the laws. Using iTunes songs in Linux breaks both of those agreements. Linux is great (I'm a Linux sysadmin, as a matter of fact), but you know going into a purchase agreement that iTunes does not support Linux. Apple should make iTunes for Linux, sure. But violating the TOS and breaking laws left and right isn't really going to convince them to do it.
If you have Linux, then iTunes really isn't a legal option for you. Get your music elsewhere and write a letter to Apple, or use another computer for iTunes and use CDs or one of the thousands of network audio streaming packages available for Linux. You do not have the right to break DRM or to use something other than iTunes to get music from iTMS, period. It's that simple.
peharri
Sep 20, 01:51 PM
I think iTV is a waste of time and money for apple. In essence, the mac mini can do ALL OF THAT, plus more, minus the ability to go out via HDMI. If apple just upgraded FRONT ROW to the quality of the iTV user interface, you have an iTV right there on the mac mini! Just add some more ports, including HDMI, cable in for DVR recording, a massive hard drive, and you have a MAC MEDIA CENTER PC! What about connecting to other machines to share content? YOU CAN ALREADY DO THAT!!! In iTunes you say "share my media on my network" and any computer with iTunes can read that information! Come on apple...this iTV thing is a WASTE. It's a dumb down mac mini...apple will make way more money selling mac mini's with TIGER/LEOPARD on it, so not only would you get a DVR, STREAMING MOVIES, DOWNLOADABLE MOVIES TO PLAY ON YOUR TV, but you get WEB TV!!! Or edit a MOVIE ON YOUR BIG ASS TV! Sorry for the rant...I just don't know why apple doesn't merge both technologies together in one system to compete with media center pc, and convert MORE mac sales.
The iTV is going to be $300. You're talking about ordinary users paying well over $600 for a set top box. Requiring that they get a Mac mini raises the barrier to entry but doesn't provide any significant advantage to the person who just wants iTunes on their TV.
The iTV is going to be $300. You're talking about ordinary users paying well over $600 for a set top box. Requiring that they get a Mac mini raises the barrier to entry but doesn't provide any significant advantage to the person who just wants iTunes on their TV.
leomac08
Mar 11, 07:25 PM
I pray that this will not turn into another Chernobyl situation.
how far is Sendai from Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
so much radiation!!!:eek:
how far is Sendai from Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
so much radiation!!!:eek:
koobcamuk
Apr 8, 11:24 PM
Great news. Bring on more Infinity Blade-esque games! :D
Yeah, a million FPS clones on a 3.5" touchscreen sounds just greeaaat :rolleyes:
Yeah, a million FPS clones on a 3.5" touchscreen sounds just greeaaat :rolleyes:
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar