Fraaaa
Apr 15, 09:53 AM
So Trevor is for people that consider suicide - yet the video looks much towards LGBT only.
Liquorpuki
Oct 7, 04:28 PM
2. Only one manufactor is going to sting. Android is announced already on 4 different companies phones (Motoral, HTC, Samsung,and Nokia) I have heard rumors of Sony being added to that list as well.
For those who like the iPhone, this works in our favor. With iPhone OS, there's only one hardware platform developers have to deal with. All they need to do for QC is make sure their apps work on the latest OS rev.
Since Android is a platform running on multiple handsets, devs SHOULD test their apps on multiple phones. Most won't because they don't have the resources to get their hands on every single phone out there. So software that runs fine on one phone won't run on others and might even brick them because of different hw configurations. It happened with Windows Mobile.
3. Apple very poor and single point app approval process is starting to a lot of problems. When Jail Break stores are kicking off it clearly people want more choices. Hell people Jail break just to get certain apps that apple will not approve or take to long to approve. Compared to google system where the app store is just one of many locations to buy apps.
I agree with the app approval being slow but I don't think people appreciate how streamlined the process of putting a 3rd party app on your iphone is. It's rare that an app will make your OS unstable, brick your phone, and make you restore factory settings just to get it running again.
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
For those who like the iPhone, this works in our favor. With iPhone OS, there's only one hardware platform developers have to deal with. All they need to do for QC is make sure their apps work on the latest OS rev.
Since Android is a platform running on multiple handsets, devs SHOULD test their apps on multiple phones. Most won't because they don't have the resources to get their hands on every single phone out there. So software that runs fine on one phone won't run on others and might even brick them because of different hw configurations. It happened with Windows Mobile.
3. Apple very poor and single point app approval process is starting to a lot of problems. When Jail Break stores are kicking off it clearly people want more choices. Hell people Jail break just to get certain apps that apple will not approve or take to long to approve. Compared to google system where the app store is just one of many locations to buy apps.
I agree with the app approval being slow but I don't think people appreciate how streamlined the process of putting a 3rd party app on your iphone is. It's rare that an app will make your OS unstable, brick your phone, and make you restore factory settings just to get it running again.
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
Huntn
Apr 27, 09:16 PM
Huntn, please show me some evidence for what you're saying. Then I'll tell you what I think of it. Meanwhile, I should admit that the Bible's original manuscripts no longer exist, and there are copyists' mistakes in the existing copies. There are mistranslations in at least some Bible translations. Take Matthew 24:24 in the King James Version. It's ungrammatical (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:24&version=KJV). But I still need you to give us some evidence that, for example, some tendentious ancient people tampered with Bible passages.
I think you misunderstand what I am saying. While translations are very susceptible to being tampered with especially when a church hierarchy with an agenda is involved, that is not my primary focus. The focus is what validity do ancient scripts have as truth just because they exist? I may be able to give a possible example. Jesus is central to the New Testament, but according to a History Channel Show, there are no city records in the Middle East that confirm the existence of Christ. Is this fact or fiction? I don't know, but I have reason to wonder about it.
I saw the Lourdes video and have to ask, has there been verified in any meaningful way? If so, there should be a substantial evidence, maybe a list of those who have been healed, hopefully with some documentation.
As I said elsewhere there is no moral equivalence. It took Augustine's and Aquinas' great rambling treatises to justify warfare, for instance.
In the Qur'an and the Hadith war is encouraged and its virtues extolled.
I wish people would stop trying to equate the wars of Christianity (and of that mainly Western Christianity) with Islam's modern terrorism and calls for warfare against the infidel.
In Islamic Law non-muslims are considered najiss, that means ritually impure, down to our souls, our essences. Christians are reviled especially because they practice "shirk", a law forbidding the joining of others to allah. Jews are designated as apes and pigs in the Qur'an.
there is no equivalence between Islam and Christianity.
I agree that today's radial Islam is dissimilar to modern Christianity, but Christianity has blood on his hands and is still involved in power and control although not to extent of blatantly murdering those with different views.
I think you misunderstand what I am saying. While translations are very susceptible to being tampered with especially when a church hierarchy with an agenda is involved, that is not my primary focus. The focus is what validity do ancient scripts have as truth just because they exist? I may be able to give a possible example. Jesus is central to the New Testament, but according to a History Channel Show, there are no city records in the Middle East that confirm the existence of Christ. Is this fact or fiction? I don't know, but I have reason to wonder about it.
I saw the Lourdes video and have to ask, has there been verified in any meaningful way? If so, there should be a substantial evidence, maybe a list of those who have been healed, hopefully with some documentation.
As I said elsewhere there is no moral equivalence. It took Augustine's and Aquinas' great rambling treatises to justify warfare, for instance.
In the Qur'an and the Hadith war is encouraged and its virtues extolled.
I wish people would stop trying to equate the wars of Christianity (and of that mainly Western Christianity) with Islam's modern terrorism and calls for warfare against the infidel.
In Islamic Law non-muslims are considered najiss, that means ritually impure, down to our souls, our essences. Christians are reviled especially because they practice "shirk", a law forbidding the joining of others to allah. Jews are designated as apes and pigs in the Qur'an.
there is no equivalence between Islam and Christianity.
I agree that today's radial Islam is dissimilar to modern Christianity, but Christianity has blood on his hands and is still involved in power and control although not to extent of blatantly murdering those with different views.
Bernard SG
May 3, 12:26 PM
You mean running stuff like iphoto?
PC versions of cross platform apps are typically faster, have more features than their mac counterparts. That's if there even is a version for mac. Its viable to not own a PC anymore because macs use PC hardware now and can run windows. PC users have no use for osx at all but many mac users still need to have windows
You're right to some extent but in most cases, you're advocating a philosophy that is one decade late.
Your concept of computing is valid for a small subset of the population that need sophisticated, 'professional' software.
It's really rare that someone needs to use the most advanced functionality of MS Excel that puts it 'ahead' of Numbers.
PC versions of cross platform apps are typically faster, have more features than their mac counterparts. That's if there even is a version for mac. Its viable to not own a PC anymore because macs use PC hardware now and can run windows. PC users have no use for osx at all but many mac users still need to have windows
You're right to some extent but in most cases, you're advocating a philosophy that is one decade late.
Your concept of computing is valid for a small subset of the population that need sophisticated, 'professional' software.
It's really rare that someone needs to use the most advanced functionality of MS Excel that puts it 'ahead' of Numbers.
gopher
Oct 9, 01:59 PM
Even more interesting was the advertisement from Apple when the Blue and White G3 came out, and how cool the case was when it opened so simply, they said the "Mac was more open-minded." What amazes me though is there are still just as many Windows users who are biggots in this world as Mac users who are, or even more so. Being though in the minority as we are, Mac users feel all the more need to defend themselves against this biggotted crowd. Apple is trying its hardest to level the playing field by its Switch campaign, and show that it is on the same playing field so that Windows users can't ignore us and demean us with lies, fabrications, and these myths. Only we have some people come on this board who claim that the Mac is much slower. For what purpose? How do we fight ignorance? I work with PCs only because the job I enjoy the most is run by an organization that is biased against Macs, and I'm not in the position to decide how to move Macs into the organization. But it certainly doesn't help to have people who would bad mouth the Mac. It makes us feel more in the minority and feel more the need to defend ourselves. Let's stop this attrocity. Show them what the Mac can do, and it is a viable solution. And Arne, if you are reading these boards, please delete clearly PC biased hate posts ASAP.
d.perel
Mar 19, 07:15 PM
the software would probably go over better if it did not contain the 1st syllable of 'Pirate' or 'Pirating' right before the word music..... :rolleyes:
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 04:13 PM
(Examples = teaching)!= saying
The latter is specific to the situation.
This quote is sectioned to the event of homosexuality being concerned. However, you have to prove that woman is being obscene, which is almost impossible if you've got to find 1 doctor, 4 witnesses to event, and two family members to testify the same thing.
100 striped != death.
Adultery or fornication is VERY contentious in Islam. It is a big sin, and often breaks contracts, of nature of marriage. No death here.
...
If you're going to quote something, please be sure to complete the damn sentence... and not end it prematurely:
And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.
In other words, be modest.
as above, adultery is a greater sin. This, though, does not demonstrate honour killing. An honour killing is killing made by family or community that the victim has brought dishonour against the family or community.
In this case, is it not dishonour, is it considered to be criminal.
As above.
american flag waving
american flag waving
american flag waving
animated american flag waving.
american flag waving animation
american flag waving animation
american flag waving
american flag waving animation
american flag waving animation
american flag waving animation
animated american flag waving.
AMERICAN FLAG WAVING ANIMATION
The latter is specific to the situation.
This quote is sectioned to the event of homosexuality being concerned. However, you have to prove that woman is being obscene, which is almost impossible if you've got to find 1 doctor, 4 witnesses to event, and two family members to testify the same thing.
100 striped != death.
Adultery or fornication is VERY contentious in Islam. It is a big sin, and often breaks contracts, of nature of marriage. No death here.
...
If you're going to quote something, please be sure to complete the damn sentence... and not end it prematurely:
And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.
In other words, be modest.
as above, adultery is a greater sin. This, though, does not demonstrate honour killing. An honour killing is killing made by family or community that the victim has brought dishonour against the family or community.
In this case, is it not dishonour, is it considered to be criminal.
As above.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 09:52 AM
Exactly what I was going to say.
<high five>
That particular assumption is one of my pet peeves. :D
(The assumption that God is the Christian version.)
<high five>
That particular assumption is one of my pet peeves. :D
(The assumption that God is the Christian version.)
cmcconkey
Jul 12, 12:15 PM
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
Also would have to have a standard Firewire port. Wireless and Bluetooth standard would be just awesome, considering it is quite cheap now. At that price point would be VERY nice. But don't see it happening. :(
Christopher
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
Also would have to have a standard Firewire port. Wireless and Bluetooth standard would be just awesome, considering it is quite cheap now. At that price point would be VERY nice. But don't see it happening. :(
Christopher
MacRumors
Jul 11, 09:51 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
AppleInsider claims they have confirmation (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1877) that Apple will be using Intel's Xeon 5100 series processors, also known as "Woodcrest" to power their next generation Intel-based Mac Pro Workstations.
Previous claims (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060609094241.shtml) indicated that the Mac Pro would continue the Quad-core tradition set by the latest batch of PowerMac G5's. However, in order for an Intel-based "Quad" to be developed, a multi-processor machine would be required, which inherently leaves out the use of Core 2 Duo "Conroe" based microprocessors, as they do not support multi-processor configurations.
Of note, ThinkSecret has maintained (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060704122932.shtml) that they believe the Mac Pro will utilize Core 2 Duo (Conroe).
Additionally, AppleInsider speculates that Conroe may be used in a future iMac revision, while Merom will be used in future MacBook Pros and Yonah will remain in the MacBook and Mac Mini.
Digg This (http://digg.com/apple/Mac_Pro_and_Woodcrest_Confirmed)
AppleInsider claims they have confirmation (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1877) that Apple will be using Intel's Xeon 5100 series processors, also known as "Woodcrest" to power their next generation Intel-based Mac Pro Workstations.
Previous claims (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060609094241.shtml) indicated that the Mac Pro would continue the Quad-core tradition set by the latest batch of PowerMac G5's. However, in order for an Intel-based "Quad" to be developed, a multi-processor machine would be required, which inherently leaves out the use of Core 2 Duo "Conroe" based microprocessors, as they do not support multi-processor configurations.
Of note, ThinkSecret has maintained (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060704122932.shtml) that they believe the Mac Pro will utilize Core 2 Duo (Conroe).
Additionally, AppleInsider speculates that Conroe may be used in a future iMac revision, while Merom will be used in future MacBook Pros and Yonah will remain in the MacBook and Mac Mini.
Digg This (http://digg.com/apple/Mac_Pro_and_Woodcrest_Confirmed)
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 08:47 AM
Oh, let these people have their fun. The market will prove them wrong. Each era begins with such folk who are good at the previous era's technology. They never see the turning points, but they still get swept up in history.
milo
Sep 20, 11:21 AM
This must be a US-centric view. Here (UK) PVRs with twin Freeview (DTT) tuners and 80GB HDs are everywhere. And they are very cheap now (120 quid upwards).
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
Looks like a cool box, but still pretty expensive, $525 USD. And I assume not available in the USA. Anyone know what the cheapest PVR you can buy in the states is?
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
And the fact that you can't use the iTV as a computer! The iPod can play audio and video like a mini can, does that make the iPod "a cut down mini" too?
If I have a mini, couldn't I use it as an iTV with frontrow? Why would I get an iTV when I can get a refirb mini for $200 more, when it can do more?
Because it's $200 more. And this is just the initial pricing, as time goes on the iTV will get cheaper faster than computers do.
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit. The mini's size could allow for a DVD slot/player/burner and maybe even allow for the Mac OS in the box, so you don't need another computer to stream your media from. In fact, I assumed that was what the Mini was ultimately destined for anyway.
Because it would be way more expensive than $200, with little chance of prices dropping much.
Since iTV most likely wont be a DVR device, I coughed up $700 today for a Sony DVR instead.
I am sure Apple has a brilliant plan for the iTV, but I fail to see it.
Well, the first step of the plan is to cost less than $700. :eek: At that price, the technology will never be anything more than a niche.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
He was talking about the future of iTunes/iTV. Who's to say that someday everything on cable won't be on iTunes?
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
Looks like a cool box, but still pretty expensive, $525 USD. And I assume not available in the USA. Anyone know what the cheapest PVR you can buy in the states is?
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
And the fact that you can't use the iTV as a computer! The iPod can play audio and video like a mini can, does that make the iPod "a cut down mini" too?
If I have a mini, couldn't I use it as an iTV with frontrow? Why would I get an iTV when I can get a refirb mini for $200 more, when it can do more?
Because it's $200 more. And this is just the initial pricing, as time goes on the iTV will get cheaper faster than computers do.
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit. The mini's size could allow for a DVD slot/player/burner and maybe even allow for the Mac OS in the box, so you don't need another computer to stream your media from. In fact, I assumed that was what the Mini was ultimately destined for anyway.
Because it would be way more expensive than $200, with little chance of prices dropping much.
Since iTV most likely wont be a DVR device, I coughed up $700 today for a Sony DVR instead.
I am sure Apple has a brilliant plan for the iTV, but I fail to see it.
Well, the first step of the plan is to cost less than $700. :eek: At that price, the technology will never be anything more than a niche.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
He was talking about the future of iTunes/iTV. Who's to say that someday everything on cable won't be on iTunes?
Peace
Sep 12, 06:23 PM
Honestly though, who would want to stream HD??
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
If it did support HD??
thats kinda stupid considering it has HDMI and component connectors.
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
If it did support HD??
thats kinda stupid considering it has HDMI and component connectors.
mroddjob
Apr 13, 05:24 AM
I'm confused as to why everyone is saying this is a step down from FCP7, from what I saw of the feeds apple were just showcasing some of the new features. I may be wrong but i didn't see anywhere where they said they were taking functionality out. They didn't mention color or the rest of FCS but they didn't say they were getting rid of everything. So how can people say this has dropped down to a prosumer level?
If all they did was re-write with 64 bit support then it would be a step up, but they also added some new useful features, (may not be game changing but i'm sure everyone will find something that will be helpful rather than a hindrance). In which case, in my book this still makes it pro software.
It was a first look at beta software, they haven't said they've removed anything so everything people are saying is just speculation for the sake of complaining.
If all they did was re-write with 64 bit support then it would be a step up, but they also added some new useful features, (may not be game changing but i'm sure everyone will find something that will be helpful rather than a hindrance). In which case, in my book this still makes it pro software.
It was a first look at beta software, they haven't said they've removed anything so everything people are saying is just speculation for the sake of complaining.
blackstarliner
Sep 21, 03:44 AM
airport express and airtunes allowed streaming content to a stereo. this just adds video function. that's it. if there is a hd it's for buffer and basic OS/ navigation.
still a very cool solution to sending content
yes, but it also may have the functionality to browse and download content directly... maybe
still a very cool solution to sending content
yes, but it also may have the functionality to browse and download content directly... maybe
kupua
Oct 16, 09:00 AM
Ballmer should consider giving a marketing contract to Gartner!
amin
Oct 8, 08:48 AM
...With the Clovertowns, the system was 20% faster than the Woodies (even at 800 MHz slower per core), at almost exactly the same wattage (1 or 2 watts more)...
Faster at what? I'm too lazy to find the part in the keynote where they showed this. Was it 20% faster at something designed to use all 8 cores?
Faster at what? I'm too lazy to find the part in the keynote where they showed this. Was it 20% faster at something designed to use all 8 cores?
djfern
Sep 12, 03:51 PM
Well, i see it like this. iTV is just the beginning of something quite new and quite big for apple. Compare it to the release of the original iPod - black and white, audio only, expensive, small capacity. The killer thing about the iPod was less about it's features than it's interface and operability with itunes. It made something - portable music player - easier and more elegant.
And that's what iTV is. Today, if you want to play movies you've downloaded, you need a multi-media DVD player (with divx and mpeg support) and you need to burn discs. Play a CD on the stereo? Hook up your ipod or laptop to a cable. Etc.. This device eliminates the need to burn discs for video and makes it easier to view content - however acquired - that's already on your computer. Bravo. Simple. It's not trying to be everybody's everything. Like i said, the original iPod only played audio. That was enough for a start.
Will they add a hard drive? Probably. Will you be able to download HD quality movies from the internet with this thing? Eventually. But Apple's gonna do it one step at a time. They'll introduce a basic device at first, see what people think and how it does, and add features carefully and slowly over time. This recipe worked wonders with the iPod. I think it will work here too.
And that's what iTV is. Today, if you want to play movies you've downloaded, you need a multi-media DVD player (with divx and mpeg support) and you need to burn discs. Play a CD on the stereo? Hook up your ipod or laptop to a cable. Etc.. This device eliminates the need to burn discs for video and makes it easier to view content - however acquired - that's already on your computer. Bravo. Simple. It's not trying to be everybody's everything. Like i said, the original iPod only played audio. That was enough for a start.
Will they add a hard drive? Probably. Will you be able to download HD quality movies from the internet with this thing? Eventually. But Apple's gonna do it one step at a time. They'll introduce a basic device at first, see what people think and how it does, and add features carefully and slowly over time. This recipe worked wonders with the iPod. I think it will work here too.
rasmasyean
Mar 13, 10:15 PM
Can you use nuclear warheads to disperse a tsunami?
With today's high yeild nuclear bombs, given enough time, can you detonate a nuke to vaporize/disperse the ripple of a tsunami? I know one tactic of fleet warfare is like to vaporize the water under the ships to make them "fall" or something like that.
I mean, I don't know how many megatons this will take or how much of the tsunami will be vaporized and sent up into the air, but maybe at some point it will reduce the force and profile of the incomming wave? :)
With today's high yeild nuclear bombs, given enough time, can you detonate a nuke to vaporize/disperse the ripple of a tsunami? I know one tactic of fleet warfare is like to vaporize the water under the ships to make them "fall" or something like that.
I mean, I don't know how many megatons this will take or how much of the tsunami will be vaporized and sent up into the air, but maybe at some point it will reduce the force and profile of the incomming wave? :)
appleguy123
Apr 22, 11:00 PM
Dawkins might. As I said before, most atheists are agnostic atheists.
I just don't really get why people who label themselves agnostic try to separate themselves from Atheists. Almost no atheist wouldn't fit under the aboved defined 'gnostic atheist' label. We're all in the same boat here.
I just don't really get why people who label themselves agnostic try to separate themselves from Atheists. Almost no atheist wouldn't fit under the aboved defined 'gnostic atheist' label. We're all in the same boat here.
topicolo
Jul 11, 10:27 PM
Sounds like these new Mac Pros are going to be expensive.
PeterQVenkman
Apr 13, 01:53 PM
Wake up and smell the coffee but as your post indicates you dont live in the real world as companies will pay more for something they feel is better than it really is. Its simple business logic and psychology.
Yes, how will you stay in business if 16 year olds can undercut you on price and have the same quality?
Companies pay a premium for a professional using professional gear not an app you download from the app store.
Does it matter where a carpenter buys his hammer?
Yes, how will you stay in business if 16 year olds can undercut you on price and have the same quality?
Companies pay a premium for a professional using professional gear not an app you download from the app store.
Does it matter where a carpenter buys his hammer?
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.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 06:32 PM
I would never claim any such thing. If anything, the Quran is more related to the books of the Old Testament, some of which Islam shares, hence the "People of The Book". The Ugaritic chief god, El, of course was the prototype for Yahweh/Jehovah/El/Allah, and the minor gods were kept on as "angels" by all three religions.
I completely agree with you. These Abrahamic religions do have a lot in common.
Edit, a few Christians tried to sue a Muslim representative here. It failed.
I completely agree with you. These Abrahamic religions do have a lot in common.
Edit, a few Christians tried to sue a Muslim representative here. It failed.