dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:23 PM
You do realize that we live in a capitalist culture right, one of the greatest consumerist cultures to have ever existed on this planet. Do you honestly believe that purchased content, free of commercials, is going to work? It was all fine and dandy when it was Apple stopping file sharing but when it's Apple honing in on the terrain of a multi-billion dollar advertising system, they're going to face significantly more resistance. And that's why cable and satellite television aren't going away anytime soon. Either that, or you can expect to see commerials coming to your iTunes downloads in the future.
Actually as a media advertising agency owner I can tell you that you've got it backwards. Cable and Satellite are all planning to go to a totally on-demand solution much like iTunes. Commercials and advertising will evolve, through viral marketing and embedded content, as it always has. The days of linear programming cut up with ads are nearing their end.
Actually as a media advertising agency owner I can tell you that you've got it backwards. Cable and Satellite are all planning to go to a totally on-demand solution much like iTunes. Commercials and advertising will evolve, through viral marketing and embedded content, as it always has. The days of linear programming cut up with ads are nearing their end.
gugy
Jul 12, 01:55 AM
Why the obsession with Adobe? There are other companies out there as well.
Oh really.
Ok, tell me what's out there that can substitute on a professional level Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator.
I am sure you don't work on the business, so you have no clue.
Oh really.
Ok, tell me what's out there that can substitute on a professional level Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator.
I am sure you don't work on the business, so you have no clue.
BoyBach
Aug 29, 04:30 PM
I'd just like to inject here that Apple is apparently complying with all U.S. environmental regulations and, to my mind anyway, has no corporate responsibility towards the environment beyond that. They are certainly not bound by the law to have CPU and iPod recycling programs, for example.
If they were breaking environmental law, that would be entirely different. Their social responsibility towards the environment is to act within the law, which they are doing.
Maybe. But Apple are global company and they are subject to the laws of the various countries in which they sell their products.
In the EU there will soon be WEEE directive that governs the disposal of so called "E-waste" (televisions, computers, phones, etc), that will seriously affect manufacturers and retailers. So will Apple continue along their current trend of simply not selling products in these territories or will they redesign them? Because, eventually these sorts of laws will be passed all around the world, including the US.
Reactive or proactive - which is the better business?
If they were breaking environmental law, that would be entirely different. Their social responsibility towards the environment is to act within the law, which they are doing.
Maybe. But Apple are global company and they are subject to the laws of the various countries in which they sell their products.
In the EU there will soon be WEEE directive that governs the disposal of so called "E-waste" (televisions, computers, phones, etc), that will seriously affect manufacturers and retailers. So will Apple continue along their current trend of simply not selling products in these territories or will they redesign them? Because, eventually these sorts of laws will be passed all around the world, including the US.
Reactive or proactive - which is the better business?
silentnite
May 4, 11:49 AM
Safari is not set as a default for me & I only use it if Mozilla is stalling but this is only the beginning for apple with it's continued success comes a lot of security issues for the future.
Piggie
Apr 9, 07:15 PM
You raise an interesting point, but would holding an iPad with a gamepad around it really be that comfortable?
I can think of two reasons why it wouldn't be:
Device weight and the distance at which you'd have to hold it for it to be usable. iPad is 601g - holding that at arm's length or thereabouts while trying to concentrate on a game could be quite difficult, especially for younger users. It's almost three times the weight of a Nintendo DSi.
Sorry, perhaps you misunderstand what I mean.
I mean a separate hand held controller. Not connected to the iPad at all.
You have the iPad on a stand, angled up a bit like a monitor, or tilted up like the smart cover does, or laying on your knees, and you are holding the controller in your hands nowhere near the screen.
You can have your hands relaxed wherever you want them to be, and your iPad is your gaming screen.
Note: I'm not suggesting this for a mobile gaming experience when you are on the move. That's why I don't think there would any point really in this type of option on an iPhone or Touch as they are more "on the move" devices, you pull out your pocket and play for a few minutes.
The iPad is a more home device, a chill out on the sofa or on the bed ect device, and in these scenarios you would be able to prop up the screen with anything your like and get your controller out if you wished to.
Again, no-one would be forcing you, it would just be an option.
I can think of two reasons why it wouldn't be:
Device weight and the distance at which you'd have to hold it for it to be usable. iPad is 601g - holding that at arm's length or thereabouts while trying to concentrate on a game could be quite difficult, especially for younger users. It's almost three times the weight of a Nintendo DSi.
Sorry, perhaps you misunderstand what I mean.
I mean a separate hand held controller. Not connected to the iPad at all.
You have the iPad on a stand, angled up a bit like a monitor, or tilted up like the smart cover does, or laying on your knees, and you are holding the controller in your hands nowhere near the screen.
You can have your hands relaxed wherever you want them to be, and your iPad is your gaming screen.
Note: I'm not suggesting this for a mobile gaming experience when you are on the move. That's why I don't think there would any point really in this type of option on an iPhone or Touch as they are more "on the move" devices, you pull out your pocket and play for a few minutes.
The iPad is a more home device, a chill out on the sofa or on the bed ect device, and in these scenarios you would be able to prop up the screen with anything your like and get your controller out if you wished to.
Again, no-one would be forcing you, it would just be an option.
After G
Sep 12, 08:05 PM
I don't watch TV - the market for it is not me ... TV these days is too full of crap. No DVR because I don't want to save crap.
My watching model is: I watch it once, I know what happened, I don't care for keeping it. Because of this, I don't buy DVDs. I don't want to pay $20 for a watch-once movie. And most of the $5-11 deals aren't. The theater is a better offer for me, but the environment sucked a long time ago, and still does.
Hmm ... I find myself doing more with the computer ... and less everywhere else. Sounds like I fit right in to the iTV demographic, that "digital hub" thing.
My watching model is: I watch it once, I know what happened, I don't care for keeping it. Because of this, I don't buy DVDs. I don't want to pay $20 for a watch-once movie. And most of the $5-11 deals aren't. The theater is a better offer for me, but the environment sucked a long time ago, and still does.
Hmm ... I find myself doing more with the computer ... and less everywhere else. Sounds like I fit right in to the iTV demographic, that "digital hub" thing.
baryon
May 6, 01:42 PM
This is ridiculous, I have never had a dropped call in my life with O2 here in the UK, or with T-Mobile in the rest of Europe, except when going into tunnels, but that's totally normal!
iJohnHenry
Mar 11, 07:20 PM
I pray that this will not turn into another Chernobyl situation.
superslashers
Jun 22, 12:03 PM
What is it with AT&T and dropped calls? They are starting to make people REALLY MAD I think AT&T has to step there game or people are going to go to T-Mobile lol they will just have to unlock there iPhones!
spencers
Oct 7, 11:01 AM
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, a cupcake is going to take down iPhone?
skunk
Apr 24, 10:50 AM
I'm just entertaining the notion of agnosticism as a kind of nod to the great debt we owe Judaism and Christianity. If it wasn't for those two faiths which allowed for reformations (such a thing would be impossible under, say, Islam) then secular Western democracies would be vastly different.What do you mean by "allowed for"? Do you mean that they could have slaughtered more people in the wars of religion? As for Islam, we probably would not have had a Renaissance without Islam.
If Europe had succumbed to the advance of Islam, if Vienna had fallen in the 17th century things likely would be very different today. Europe would have produced as many Nobel Prize winners as the entire Islamic WorldWe would all be speaking German I expect.
If Europe had succumbed to the advance of Islam, if Vienna had fallen in the 17th century things likely would be very different today. Europe would have produced as many Nobel Prize winners as the entire Islamic WorldWe would all be speaking German I expect.
appleguy123
Mar 24, 07:22 PM
Not supporting actions is hate?
You do real that Tomasi is talking about the attacks on "People who criticise gay sexual relations..."
If I said that I don't want blacks to be married, because it hurts the sacrament of marriage, would that be hate? I think that it would be.
Like it or not, the zeitgeist is shifting to make homophobia as stigmatized as racism. The Catholic Church will have to either adapt, or perish.
You do real that Tomasi is talking about the attacks on "People who criticise gay sexual relations..."
If I said that I don't want blacks to be married, because it hurts the sacrament of marriage, would that be hate? I think that it would be.
Like it or not, the zeitgeist is shifting to make homophobia as stigmatized as racism. The Catholic Church will have to either adapt, or perish.
Don't panic
Mar 15, 09:04 AM
I'm joking about Afghanistan. It's supposed to be an Isreal joke, but obviously you didn't get it. And I think it's funny! ;)
Regarding the relocation, I think that would be pretty cool. Why not? If it boiled down to it, I think what I said would be pretty practical and beneficial.
you think it would be 'pretty cool' to relocate 130 million people to some 'barren area' in a foreign land when there is absolutely no reasons for it?
and you think it would be "practical"????
Regarding the relocation, I think that would be pretty cool. Why not? If it boiled down to it, I think what I said would be pretty practical and beneficial.
you think it would be 'pretty cool' to relocate 130 million people to some 'barren area' in a foreign land when there is absolutely no reasons for it?
and you think it would be "practical"????
johnntd
Jun 9, 10:55 AM
I still believe its just where you are at in the country. This graph is the exact opposite of what I experience. Verizon work phone - SHITE. Dropped calls so bad I forwarded the number to my iPhone. AT&T personal phone - no dropped calls.
I used to have Verizon and it was so unreliable! We had 5 phones at home and not a single one was able to maintain a phone call without being dropped constantly. We switched two members of our family to AT&T and it has been awesome since then. IMO, AT&T network is so much faster and absolutely more reliable than Verizon. We will switch the rest to AT&T by November when the contracts end.
I used to have Verizon and it was so unreliable! We had 5 phones at home and not a single one was able to maintain a phone call without being dropped constantly. We switched two members of our family to AT&T and it has been awesome since then. IMO, AT&T network is so much faster and absolutely more reliable than Verizon. We will switch the rest to AT&T by November when the contracts end.
Mal
Mar 11, 08:59 PM
I have some family members visiting Japan and a number of friends living there. They've been posting pictures and video on Facebook all the time, from the Chiba area mostly. While they're all ok, this situation with the nuclear reactors definitely have me worried. They're a few hours away from those reactors, though not far from the Ichihara oil refinery fire. Really hoping this doesn't just get worse.
jW
jW
Gelfin
Mar 25, 02:27 PM
All Christians are not Catholics.
That's the only item I was trying to 'underscore' so to speak.
Christians cannot be used interchangeably with Catholics. By using the term 'Christians' one includes a multitude of other peoples with varying religious beliefs.
No argument except as to the point. This would only be a relevant criticism if I were holding Catholics responsible for an attitude held by some Christian sects, but not by Catholics themselves. On the contrary, the Catholic attitude towards homosexuality in question is common across much of Christendom.
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
And if one goes back and reads the entire exchange, one would see that I used that term so that Appleguy123 could not go find some obscure article on some obscure Catholic sect that murders Homosexuals for fun, a sect that the mainstream governing body of the Catholic church does not endorse nor have control over.
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
As I understand it, the Vatican is the mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic church. Is there another hierarchy that governs the Catholic church?
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
That's the only item I was trying to 'underscore' so to speak.
Christians cannot be used interchangeably with Catholics. By using the term 'Christians' one includes a multitude of other peoples with varying religious beliefs.
No argument except as to the point. This would only be a relevant criticism if I were holding Catholics responsible for an attitude held by some Christian sects, but not by Catholics themselves. On the contrary, the Catholic attitude towards homosexuality in question is common across much of Christendom.
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
And if one goes back and reads the entire exchange, one would see that I used that term so that Appleguy123 could not go find some obscure article on some obscure Catholic sect that murders Homosexuals for fun, a sect that the mainstream governing body of the Catholic church does not endorse nor have control over.
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
As I understand it, the Vatican is the mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic church. Is there another hierarchy that governs the Catholic church?
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
Kissaragi
Apr 6, 09:14 AM
Theres alway the 14 day return period too if you dont like your mac.
grapes911
May 5, 11:52 AM
Yeah, no dropped calls is the only thing I miss about Verizon. AT&T is pathetic in my area.
capvideo
Mar 21, 01:37 AM
Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy.
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.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
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.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
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.
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.
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.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
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.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
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.
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?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
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.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
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.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
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.
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.
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.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
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.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
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.
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?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
drsmithy
Sep 26, 12:23 AM
So say I�m using my 8-core Mac Pro for CPU intensive digital audio recording. Would I be able to assign two cores the main program, two to virtual processing, two to auxiliary �re-wire� applications, and two to the general system? If so, I guess I need to hold out on my impending Mac Pro purchase!
You can typically bind processes to specific cores. Some OSes have a concept of processor "pools" where you can group, say, 3 CPUs together and assign a certain group of processes to them, another 2 CPUs get a different set of processes, etc.
Most of the time though (outside of benchmarks and corner cases) you're generally better off letting the OS's scheduler shuffle tasks around CPUs as it sees fit.
OS X still has a ways to go with its multiprocessor support, however, so it might not do it as well as other platforms do yet.
You can typically bind processes to specific cores. Some OSes have a concept of processor "pools" where you can group, say, 3 CPUs together and assign a certain group of processes to them, another 2 CPUs get a different set of processes, etc.
Most of the time though (outside of benchmarks and corner cases) you're generally better off letting the OS's scheduler shuffle tasks around CPUs as it sees fit.
OS X still has a ways to go with its multiprocessor support, however, so it might not do it as well as other platforms do yet.
OdduWon
Nov 3, 11:23 AM
Someone give multimedia 8 cores please. so he will have more time to bring the know. :D
you rock ;)
you rock ;)
w_parietti22
Jul 11, 10:19 PM
Xeon! Conroe (Core 2 Duo)is going in the iMac
bingo1234
Sep 21, 03:26 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
still a very cool solution to sending content
TuffLuffJimmy
Mar 13, 10:32 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? :)
That's a pretty short sighted idea. Even if that were an effective way to stop a tsunami do you really think it's very wise to drop radioactive waste on all of our problems?
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? :)
That's a pretty short sighted idea. Even if that were an effective way to stop a tsunami do you really think it's very wise to drop radioactive waste on all of our problems?
No comments:
Post a Comment