MattSepeta
Apr 27, 02:35 PM
Are you calling me a liar? I literally went to WhiteHouse.gov, opened the file in Illustrator, and moved the text around myself. :rolleyes:
Some things never change. Laughably bias.
Anyway, like I said, I'm sure there's an explanation... are there any graphic designers here who can help?
I already explained it to you.
When you scan things in, depending on the software, you are often given an option to "auto-inscribe" or something, I cant recall the term. The software then attempts to read the document and embed real type into the PDF, rarely succeeding. I'm assuming that the pieces that came through just happened to be the clearest to read.
EDIT: They probably DO want the controversy to continue! If I was in his shoes I would be eating it up. Every story on a right-wing birther makes the centerists even more alienated from the right.
Some things never change. Laughably bias.
Anyway, like I said, I'm sure there's an explanation... are there any graphic designers here who can help?
I already explained it to you.
When you scan things in, depending on the software, you are often given an option to "auto-inscribe" or something, I cant recall the term. The software then attempts to read the document and embed real type into the PDF, rarely succeeding. I'm assuming that the pieces that came through just happened to be the clearest to read.
EDIT: They probably DO want the controversy to continue! If I was in his shoes I would be eating it up. Every story on a right-wing birther makes the centerists even more alienated from the right.
m-dogg
Jul 20, 11:42 AM
The Mactopus??
Mmmmmm....8 beautiful delicious cores!
[drools]
Mmmmmm....8 beautiful delicious cores!
[drools]
MacRumors
Aug 5, 03:23 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
With the 2006 Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) quickly approaching, the Mac rumor scene has been buzzing with rumors and reports. As usual, MacRumors provides this Rumor Roundup as a summary of major rumors circulating around the Mac Web before the big event. In last year's WWDC roundup, we summarized the possibility of an Intel-based Mac (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/06/20050605001340.shtml). Readers should remember that it was only a year ago that Apple first announced they would be switching to the Intel platform.
Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard)
Apple has already announced that Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) will be discussed and demonstrated at WWDC 2006. In fact, a recent slip-up (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060803151315.shtml) on Apple's developers pages indicates that Apple will be distributing a Developer's Preview of Leopard at WWDC.
Detailed information about Leopard, however, has been very limited. Very few reliable sources of information have come forward. The earliest rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060324092148.shtml) pointed to Virtualization software to be built into Leopard, but this was flatly denied (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060709120049.shtml) by Phil Schiller.
Job postings (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060126125042.shtml), Patent applications (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060314174322.shtml) and Page 2 rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/10/20051021014014.shtml) point to a focus on updating Finder with extensive and improved integration with Spotlight. This has even been the topic of some presumed fake (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060804154559.shtml) screenshots.
Perhaps the most corroborated claims are ones of Apple's iChat 4.0 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060628195853.shtml). Appleinsider claimed that iChat 4.0 will incorporate the ability to call traditional phone lines much like existing Voice over IP services, with similar reports elsewhere on the web.
While MacOSXRumors have offered a list of other possible features: virtual desktops (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802154741.shtml), collaborative features (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060609041938.shtml), tabbed iChat (http://www.macosxrumors.com/articles/2006/08/05/more-on-leopard-revamped-ical-tabbed-chat-improved-developer-tools-and-more/), the reliability of this source is not entirely certain.
Mac Pro
The Intel-update to the PowerMac line remains highly anticipated. The first hints at a name-change came in January 2006 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060130215832.shtml) when Apple was revealed to have trademarked the term "Mac Pro". This was largely dismissed until Steve Jobs revealed the plan to change the name of the existing PowerBook and iBook lines to "MacBook" and "MacBook Pro". Meanwhile, we received early confirmation in May (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060531215206.shtml) that the Mac Pro was indeed targeted for release at WWDC 2006.
In July (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060711225142.shtml), Appleinsider felt confident that Apple had chosen the Woodcrest (dual-core Xeon) process for use in the upcoming Mac Pros. While similar to the recently released Core 2 Duo (Conroe) chips in architecture, the Woodcrest processors allow for multi-processor configurations which have been a feature of the high end PowerMacs. Meanwhile, ThinkSecret believes (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060704122932.shtml) that the Mac Pro will instead use the Core 2 Duo (Conroe) chips that were recently released. One Page 2 rumor (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802151736.shtml) claimed Apple would incorporate both Conroe and Woodcrest into different Mac Pro models, but the validity of this information has been cast in serious doubt.
Other features also rumored include substantially different (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060704122932.shtml) enclosures, dual optical drives (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060714150350.shtml) and an Intel-designed motherboard (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/12/20051227133503.shtml).
iPhone
Despite ongoing unsubstantiated claims (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802215346.shtml) that the iPhone will be released soon, there has been very little credible evidence that the iPhone will be seen at WWDC.
iPod
iPod rumors are more difficult to pin down, as iPod rumors have been circulating in full force for months. Rumors of a full video iPod (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060119104515.shtml) started in early but peaked (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060309183950.shtml) in late March due to Apple's impending 30th anniversary. Subsequent rumors of video iPod delays (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060413131333.shtml) and difficult Hollywood negotiations (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060621163959.shtml) have pushed off the release further, with one analyst (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802114855.shtml) believing September-October to be a more likely timeframe. In July, however, ThinkSecret (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060718164759.shtml) had mentioned the possibility of iPod nano updates at WWDC.
Coverage
Steve Jobs will present the Keynote address starting at 10am Pacific Time on Monday August 7th. MacRumors.com will provide live text-transcript coverage of the event on MacRumorsLive.com (http://www.macrumorslive.com/). The MacRumorsLive system uses the latest web technologies to efficiently provide dynamic text updates.
Stay tuned, as last minute leaks are not unusual in the final moments before an event.
With the 2006 Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) quickly approaching, the Mac rumor scene has been buzzing with rumors and reports. As usual, MacRumors provides this Rumor Roundup as a summary of major rumors circulating around the Mac Web before the big event. In last year's WWDC roundup, we summarized the possibility of an Intel-based Mac (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/06/20050605001340.shtml). Readers should remember that it was only a year ago that Apple first announced they would be switching to the Intel platform.
Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard)
Apple has already announced that Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) will be discussed and demonstrated at WWDC 2006. In fact, a recent slip-up (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060803151315.shtml) on Apple's developers pages indicates that Apple will be distributing a Developer's Preview of Leopard at WWDC.
Detailed information about Leopard, however, has been very limited. Very few reliable sources of information have come forward. The earliest rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060324092148.shtml) pointed to Virtualization software to be built into Leopard, but this was flatly denied (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060709120049.shtml) by Phil Schiller.
Job postings (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060126125042.shtml), Patent applications (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060314174322.shtml) and Page 2 rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/10/20051021014014.shtml) point to a focus on updating Finder with extensive and improved integration with Spotlight. This has even been the topic of some presumed fake (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060804154559.shtml) screenshots.
Perhaps the most corroborated claims are ones of Apple's iChat 4.0 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060628195853.shtml). Appleinsider claimed that iChat 4.0 will incorporate the ability to call traditional phone lines much like existing Voice over IP services, with similar reports elsewhere on the web.
While MacOSXRumors have offered a list of other possible features: virtual desktops (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802154741.shtml), collaborative features (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060609041938.shtml), tabbed iChat (http://www.macosxrumors.com/articles/2006/08/05/more-on-leopard-revamped-ical-tabbed-chat-improved-developer-tools-and-more/), the reliability of this source is not entirely certain.
Mac Pro
The Intel-update to the PowerMac line remains highly anticipated. The first hints at a name-change came in January 2006 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060130215832.shtml) when Apple was revealed to have trademarked the term "Mac Pro". This was largely dismissed until Steve Jobs revealed the plan to change the name of the existing PowerBook and iBook lines to "MacBook" and "MacBook Pro". Meanwhile, we received early confirmation in May (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060531215206.shtml) that the Mac Pro was indeed targeted for release at WWDC 2006.
In July (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060711225142.shtml), Appleinsider felt confident that Apple had chosen the Woodcrest (dual-core Xeon) process for use in the upcoming Mac Pros. While similar to the recently released Core 2 Duo (Conroe) chips in architecture, the Woodcrest processors allow for multi-processor configurations which have been a feature of the high end PowerMacs. Meanwhile, ThinkSecret believes (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060704122932.shtml) that the Mac Pro will instead use the Core 2 Duo (Conroe) chips that were recently released. One Page 2 rumor (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802151736.shtml) claimed Apple would incorporate both Conroe and Woodcrest into different Mac Pro models, but the validity of this information has been cast in serious doubt.
Other features also rumored include substantially different (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060704122932.shtml) enclosures, dual optical drives (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060714150350.shtml) and an Intel-designed motherboard (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/12/20051227133503.shtml).
iPhone
Despite ongoing unsubstantiated claims (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802215346.shtml) that the iPhone will be released soon, there has been very little credible evidence that the iPhone will be seen at WWDC.
iPod
iPod rumors are more difficult to pin down, as iPod rumors have been circulating in full force for months. Rumors of a full video iPod (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060119104515.shtml) started in early but peaked (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060309183950.shtml) in late March due to Apple's impending 30th anniversary. Subsequent rumors of video iPod delays (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060413131333.shtml) and difficult Hollywood negotiations (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060621163959.shtml) have pushed off the release further, with one analyst (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802114855.shtml) believing September-October to be a more likely timeframe. In July, however, ThinkSecret (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060718164759.shtml) had mentioned the possibility of iPod nano updates at WWDC.
Coverage
Steve Jobs will present the Keynote address starting at 10am Pacific Time on Monday August 7th. MacRumors.com will provide live text-transcript coverage of the event on MacRumorsLive.com (http://www.macrumorslive.com/). The MacRumorsLive system uses the latest web technologies to efficiently provide dynamic text updates.
Stay tuned, as last minute leaks are not unusual in the final moments before an event.
grue
Apr 11, 08:39 PM
Overreact much? FCP hasn't even been announced and your company is already talking about jumping ship? I call b.s. I'm in LA and I haven't heard anyone talking about switching anything. What needed features do you need that don't already exist?
How about using more than one bloody core to render a timeline or do an export to the eternally-broken Compressor?
How about properly recognizing file attributes on import?
�stability?
�QMaster having better than coin-flip reliability?
�better R3D support (as well as other cameras)?
�GPGPU/OpenCL?
etc etc
How about using more than one bloody core to render a timeline or do an export to the eternally-broken Compressor?
How about properly recognizing file attributes on import?
�stability?
�QMaster having better than coin-flip reliability?
�better R3D support (as well as other cameras)?
�GPGPU/OpenCL?
etc etc
citizenzen
Apr 27, 08:51 AM
If I were a birther, I'd wonder why it took him so long to forge ... I mean produce this document. ;)
Did I cross the the line of being a racist?
I don't think anybody suggested you were racist for doing that.
Did I cross the the line of being a racist?
I don't think anybody suggested you were racist for doing that.
leekohler
Mar 7, 07:59 AM
Here's a tidbit from the pdf:
This book is dedicated to the
Holy Family, the sublime model for all
families, and our sure guide in the
reaction to the sexual revolution and
homosexual offensive.
May the Blessed Mother intercede
with Her Divine Son for all Americans
committed to defend the sacred
institutions of marriage and the family.
Interesting... wasn't Mary knocked up by an angel and was she really married to Joseph? :confused:
Whoever wrote this nonsense has no idea how the world really works and what the social and cultural consensus was in the 1700s, the Renaissance and all the way before. Any idealized tradition in family, culture and society the Christians of today are pining for would completely eradicate everything we've worked for to be free and live without fear to be who we are.
I just have one thing to say to all the righteous religious folk; it's over, end of the line, the jig is up. You've had your chance and you blew it. Join us in the 21st century where liberty, freedom and equality prevail - it's not perfect but it's the best we can do. So, rather than fighting it, join it and help it make better.
They really think we're the enemy. It's unbelievable.
This book is dedicated to the
Holy Family, the sublime model for all
families, and our sure guide in the
reaction to the sexual revolution and
homosexual offensive.
May the Blessed Mother intercede
with Her Divine Son for all Americans
committed to defend the sacred
institutions of marriage and the family.
Interesting... wasn't Mary knocked up by an angel and was she really married to Joseph? :confused:
Whoever wrote this nonsense has no idea how the world really works and what the social and cultural consensus was in the 1700s, the Renaissance and all the way before. Any idealized tradition in family, culture and society the Christians of today are pining for would completely eradicate everything we've worked for to be free and live without fear to be who we are.
I just have one thing to say to all the righteous religious folk; it's over, end of the line, the jig is up. You've had your chance and you blew it. Join us in the 21st century where liberty, freedom and equality prevail - it's not perfect but it's the best we can do. So, rather than fighting it, join it and help it make better.
They really think we're the enemy. It's unbelievable.
Kirkmedia
Aug 11, 10:51 AM
iPhone = bad idea and difficult to implement beyond the USA.
I think it will be harder to implement in the USA and easier in Europe.
I think it will be harder to implement in the USA and easier in Europe.
maclaptop
Apr 20, 07:42 AM
Poor Paranoid Apple :)
ryanx
Apr 10, 06:37 PM
a >>dramatic<< change - the truth is that it really needs to be dramatic :))
parapup
Apr 11, 12:13 PM
Apple really needs to make some significant changes to iOS5 to bring me back this time.
For me those changes would be -
a) Check box that says "Allow app installs from unknown sources"
b) Mind blowing notification system - never before seen preferably, but something that even remotely competes with webOS would do
c) Widgets
d) Bigger screen - although this is not iOS specific, a iOS5 that does some magic with bigger screen is what I am looking for.
Tough gig Apple - doesn't hurt to try :)
For me those changes would be -
a) Check box that says "Allow app installs from unknown sources"
b) Mind blowing notification system - never before seen preferably, but something that even remotely competes with webOS would do
c) Widgets
d) Bigger screen - although this is not iOS specific, a iOS5 that does some magic with bigger screen is what I am looking for.
Tough gig Apple - doesn't hurt to try :)
rayz
Aug 8, 02:31 AM
Time Machine: the attempts to say this was done before with VMS, System Restore or Shadow Copy are pathetic, and those who made the comparison should be ashamed of themselves. Of course it isn't a completely new idea: it's been something that people have wanted to do for years. As far as I can see, Apple is the company that first demonstrated a practical version of this feature that an ordinary person could use. I predict that Microsoft's implementation will be a complicated mess that regular users find opaque and will not use (just like System Restore is).
Er ... you right click on the file, select properties, and then just click on the previous versions tab.
MS has actually put it where most people expect to find it; I thought they might put it on the actual right-click menu, but I honestly don't think that it's going to get used enough for folk to want to have it in their face all the time.
Oh, and MS doesn't need a separate drive for it to work. If the Apple Time Machine ( :rolleyes: ) really does need a separate drive, then it sounds as if Apple has probably just skinned a version control system it pulled from the open source world.
Er ... you right click on the file, select properties, and then just click on the previous versions tab.
MS has actually put it where most people expect to find it; I thought they might put it on the actual right-click menu, but I honestly don't think that it's going to get used enough for folk to want to have it in their face all the time.
Oh, and MS doesn't need a separate drive for it to work. If the Apple Time Machine ( :rolleyes: ) really does need a separate drive, then it sounds as if Apple has probably just skinned a version control system it pulled from the open source world.
NoSmokingBandit
Dec 6, 06:39 PM
I got an 03 Lotus Elise :rolleyes:
Its a nice car, i just have no use for it. Idk if there are Lotus-only races later on so i didnt sell it yet.
I noticed in my garage that theres an option for sharing cars online. I havent read the GT5 manual so i have no idea what it does, but i assume it would allow my PSN friends to drive my cars if i'm not using them. I shared my Citroen, if someone is logged on later check the Online tab of your garage and see if its there. Just dont put too many miles on it ;)
Its a nice car, i just have no use for it. Idk if there are Lotus-only races later on so i didnt sell it yet.
I noticed in my garage that theres an option for sharing cars online. I havent read the GT5 manual so i have no idea what it does, but i assume it would allow my PSN friends to drive my cars if i'm not using them. I shared my Citroen, if someone is logged on later check the Online tab of your garage and see if its there. Just dont put too many miles on it ;)
840quadra
Apr 27, 08:48 AM
Did you read ANY of the news articles.
With location services turned off, this data was still be collected. And Apple says this was a "bug"
So you're wrong.
Regardless,
Carrying any type of wireless phone (even so-called dumb phones), and expecting to have no chance of being tracked, or logged in some fassion is a bit closed minded.
Because, despite how Apple excel at so many things, when it comes to handling user (quality or privacy) concerns like this, they suck.
Look at their responses to the iPhone 4 antenna issue:
"You're holding it wrong" - Blame the customer.
'Every phone has the same issue' - Our phone is bad, but no worse than anyone else's
'Let's change how the signal bars are displayed' - Let's hide the problem.
'Let's give a bumper case with the iPhone' - Let's offer a solution to some users, to get them off our back for a problem we used to deny even existed.
I'm not even saying the antenna issue was a serious problem, but Apple's dismissive attitude is only throwing fuel on the fire. If they had tackled it quicker, it would be never have been newsworthy.
It's great that Apple are addressing this (location) issue much quicker, but still it only is happening after they initially denied there was any issue, and waiting for the furore to grow before acting.
Agreed, Apple is a bit too good at putting it's foot in it's own stem.. I mean mouth. :o
With location services turned off, this data was still be collected. And Apple says this was a "bug"
So you're wrong.
Regardless,
Carrying any type of wireless phone (even so-called dumb phones), and expecting to have no chance of being tracked, or logged in some fassion is a bit closed minded.
Because, despite how Apple excel at so many things, when it comes to handling user (quality or privacy) concerns like this, they suck.
Look at their responses to the iPhone 4 antenna issue:
"You're holding it wrong" - Blame the customer.
'Every phone has the same issue' - Our phone is bad, but no worse than anyone else's
'Let's change how the signal bars are displayed' - Let's hide the problem.
'Let's give a bumper case with the iPhone' - Let's offer a solution to some users, to get them off our back for a problem we used to deny even existed.
I'm not even saying the antenna issue was a serious problem, but Apple's dismissive attitude is only throwing fuel on the fire. If they had tackled it quicker, it would be never have been newsworthy.
It's great that Apple are addressing this (location) issue much quicker, but still it only is happening after they initially denied there was any issue, and waiting for the furore to grow before acting.
Agreed, Apple is a bit too good at putting it's foot in it's own stem.. I mean mouth. :o
NebulaClash
Apr 27, 08:11 AM
5. Can Apple locate me based on my geo-tagged Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data?
No. This data is sent to Apple in an anonymous and encrypted form. Apple cannot identify the source of this data.
So while it is true that the iPhone does note Wi-Fi locations in your general area, and thus it does "track" you in that sense, it is only on your Mac that this information can actually track you. The information sent to Apple is anonymized, and thus not trackable to you.
Apple is NOT tracking you. Your phone creates a database that could track you IF SOMEONE HAS ACCESS TO YOUR MAC. But if that happens, they already know everything there is to know about you anyway and have no need to check your Wi-Fi database. They've got your Address Book info, your bank site links and cookies, your email, your personal letters, etc.
The only reason to slam Apple is for not culling this local database. Now they will. But Apple was NEVER tracking you. Apple is not lying when they say that.
No. This data is sent to Apple in an anonymous and encrypted form. Apple cannot identify the source of this data.
So while it is true that the iPhone does note Wi-Fi locations in your general area, and thus it does "track" you in that sense, it is only on your Mac that this information can actually track you. The information sent to Apple is anonymized, and thus not trackable to you.
Apple is NOT tracking you. Your phone creates a database that could track you IF SOMEONE HAS ACCESS TO YOUR MAC. But if that happens, they already know everything there is to know about you anyway and have no need to check your Wi-Fi database. They've got your Address Book info, your bank site links and cookies, your email, your personal letters, etc.
The only reason to slam Apple is for not culling this local database. Now they will. But Apple was NEVER tracking you. Apple is not lying when they say that.
jeff181995
Mar 22, 06:17 PM
i'd totally go for one of those 10.1 galaxy tabs but i'm afraid that it might never receive an update
840quadra
Nov 28, 06:51 PM
Adds universal to the list of Companies I do not buy from..
Wait..
They are already on that list!
GTH Universal! I bought my iPod, Every song on it, and will continue to do so. Stop Extorting the public, and possibly you may actually have some fans, or people that want to deal with your crappy company!
Wait..
They are already on that list!
GTH Universal! I bought my iPod, Every song on it, and will continue to do so. Stop Extorting the public, and possibly you may actually have some fans, or people that want to deal with your crappy company!
hexor
Mar 26, 08:03 AM
There is no way this is a GM. The "reporter" is obviously confused. If it was a GM version that means they would be sending it off for duplication soon. Since WWDC is months away this makes no sense.
peterdevries
Apr 20, 08:50 AM
Samsung didn't stole it from Apple since they were first with the design, end of story.
Samsung can claim Apple stole their design and patent it. That's fraud right since it's not their own idea?
Read my post properly. If one company doesn't patent the idea, than other companies can copy it without consequence. If Samsung was indeed first (and I'm not challenging that they were, I don't know), than they are stupid that they didn't patent it.
I'm sure Samsung sues many other companies that infringe on their patents.
I really don't understand what all this fuss is about. People need to see that this is normal business practice (whatever your opinion of it may be is totally besides the point).
Samsung can claim Apple stole their design and patent it. That's fraud right since it's not their own idea?
Read my post properly. If one company doesn't patent the idea, than other companies can copy it without consequence. If Samsung was indeed first (and I'm not challenging that they were, I don't know), than they are stupid that they didn't patent it.
I'm sure Samsung sues many other companies that infringe on their patents.
I really don't understand what all this fuss is about. People need to see that this is normal business practice (whatever your opinion of it may be is totally besides the point).
LagunaSol
Apr 12, 11:33 PM
I personally wouldn't recommend people buy a subsidized phone, but people are price sensitive. YMMV. :(
You're going to be paying for a data plan anyway, so why not make some of that money back in a subsidy?
You're going to be paying for a data plan anyway, so why not make some of that money back in a subsidy?
citizenzen
Mar 22, 07:08 PM
Whether it turns out to be justified depends on subsequent events.
Sounds dangerously like, "the ends justify the means."
Sounds dangerously like, "the ends justify the means."
citizenzen
Mar 17, 11:36 AM
How many times did Barack Obama attempt to draw a difference between himself and Hillary by saying "I was against the war from the beginning."? Lots.
Being against a specific military action doesn't make one a military dove.
I see you included lots of "lots" but no "links". I'm sorry, but mere rhetoric only goes so far in this forum. If there are so many instances that prove your point, why haven't you actually produced them?
Being against a specific military action doesn't make one a military dove.
I see you included lots of "lots" but no "links". I'm sorry, but mere rhetoric only goes so far in this forum. If there are so many instances that prove your point, why haven't you actually produced them?
Porco
Nov 28, 10:41 PM
The full article is very funny.
"It would be a nice idea. We have a negotiation coming up not too far. I don't see why we wouldn't do that... but maybe not in the same way," he told the Reuters Media Summit, when asked if Universal would negotiate a royalty fee for the iPod that would be similar to Microsoft's Zune.
"The Zune (deal) was an amazingly interesting exercise, to end up with a piece of technology," he added.
"It would be a nice idea" if I got money for nothing too! And why am I tempted to read "an amazingly interesting exercise" as an amazingly interesting exercise ... he added, dollar signs flashing in his eyes like some real-life Scrooge McDuck' ?
And to end up with "a piece of technology"! Yes! wow! hahahahah, I bet Microsoft were astounded about that too.
As the various parodies of such behaviour online indicates, the whole thing would be hilarious if it wasn't so ... true.
Pirates will pirate unless you give them a compelling reason not to. Legitimate customers will stay that way unless they feel piracy is an action they are ethically comfortable with. This kind of garbage makes that happen.
So for every iPod that would possibly hold a good couple of hundred Universal tracks amongst the thousands on there, I'd guess this kind of thing completely turns us nerds towards piracy rather than CD purchases/legitimate downloads. Is that $1 per iPod really going to make them as much money as the $xx they have lost on CDs and downloads? I'd guess not. Even if only 1% of people buying iPods pirate Universal tracks instead of buying them because of this deal (if it happens), it would be a loser for Universal. And of course the only people not financially at a loss because of it will be people who buy tracks, not the pirates who are back in the black as soon as they soak up the $1 surcharge by illegally downloading a Universal album as soon as they get their iPod.
If Apple did have the misfortune to be made to accept this kind of thing (unlikely right now I'd think, but you never know after a couple of ad-laden Zune-ar years), they should add the $1 to the price of the iPod so people ask "why does it cost $201?" and they should tell people on their web-site exactly why as well, providing details of how to get in touch with Universal to express their thanks.
Sorry if I've repeated any points already made... it's a Universally idiotic idea.
"It would be a nice idea. We have a negotiation coming up not too far. I don't see why we wouldn't do that... but maybe not in the same way," he told the Reuters Media Summit, when asked if Universal would negotiate a royalty fee for the iPod that would be similar to Microsoft's Zune.
"The Zune (deal) was an amazingly interesting exercise, to end up with a piece of technology," he added.
"It would be a nice idea" if I got money for nothing too! And why am I tempted to read "an amazingly interesting exercise" as an amazingly interesting exercise ... he added, dollar signs flashing in his eyes like some real-life Scrooge McDuck' ?
And to end up with "a piece of technology"! Yes! wow! hahahahah, I bet Microsoft were astounded about that too.
As the various parodies of such behaviour online indicates, the whole thing would be hilarious if it wasn't so ... true.
Pirates will pirate unless you give them a compelling reason not to. Legitimate customers will stay that way unless they feel piracy is an action they are ethically comfortable with. This kind of garbage makes that happen.
So for every iPod that would possibly hold a good couple of hundred Universal tracks amongst the thousands on there, I'd guess this kind of thing completely turns us nerds towards piracy rather than CD purchases/legitimate downloads. Is that $1 per iPod really going to make them as much money as the $xx they have lost on CDs and downloads? I'd guess not. Even if only 1% of people buying iPods pirate Universal tracks instead of buying them because of this deal (if it happens), it would be a loser for Universal. And of course the only people not financially at a loss because of it will be people who buy tracks, not the pirates who are back in the black as soon as they soak up the $1 surcharge by illegally downloading a Universal album as soon as they get their iPod.
If Apple did have the misfortune to be made to accept this kind of thing (unlikely right now I'd think, but you never know after a couple of ad-laden Zune-ar years), they should add the $1 to the price of the iPod so people ask "why does it cost $201?" and they should tell people on their web-site exactly why as well, providing details of how to get in touch with Universal to express their thanks.
Sorry if I've repeated any points already made... it's a Universally idiotic idea.
robotx21
Sep 19, 12:51 PM
I'm kinda glad they didn't release the macbook pro's today. All that means, if they are released next week, it will be more than just a minor update :-D Here's to hoping!
Shagrat
Sep 13, 07:56 AM
and this got negative votes because...??????????
Yeesh!
Yeesh!