leekohler
Apr 15, 09:13 AM
If they alienate customers who think bullying people into suicidal depression is a good thing, then great.
Yep. I see no reason to worry about people like that.
Yep. I see no reason to worry about people like that.
Povilas
Oct 7, 02:14 PM
Cause it's not. I played with the iPhone SDK for a test app and had to relearn a few things. For example, the + or - in front of a method, which means instance or class method (or vice-versa). I could find the right information (or Google keywords) to get it without a few bouts of swearing.
Then my company got a contract to port an iPhone app to Android. And by port I mean rewrite since we can't share anything from obj-c to Java.
Coming from a C/C++ background, the learning curve was really quick. Plus Google did a relatively good job with its SDK and emulator which work pretty well on both Mac and Windows.
For me Objective-C is user-friendly enough.
Then my company got a contract to port an iPhone app to Android. And by port I mean rewrite since we can't share anything from obj-c to Java.
Coming from a C/C++ background, the learning curve was really quick. Plus Google did a relatively good job with its SDK and emulator which work pretty well on both Mac and Windows.
For me Objective-C is user-friendly enough.
hstaniloff
May 5, 05:30 PM
I live on the north shore of Long Island. The service is the worst. Absolutely the worst. I get little to no service in my home. When out and about, the phone is only reliable about 30% of the time. Dropped calls every singe time. Every time. Pitiful. Everywhere else - the Hamptons, off LI like down in Virginia or Florida, the phone works great. I love the iPhone but the service is making me bail. As soon as they come out with a Verizon version of the iPhone, I'm outta here AT&T!
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 08:41 PM
In science when there is a dearth of evidence for something, you fail to reject the null hypothesis (which is that hypothesis x is incorrect).
If I wanted to make a claim about something, say that two bricks tied together will fall at the same rate as a single brick, I first have to make this my working hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that what I'm asserting is not true (in this case the null is that the bricks will fall at different rates). It's up to me to provide the evidence. If there isn't enough (or any) evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
When it comes to religion, it is the theologian who is making the claim. Thus, his working hypothesis is, "God exists." In searching for evidence, however, we come up with nothing. Thus we must fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is, "God does not exist."
Agnosticism is really the position that the an affirmative statement on the matter of deities is impossible to know. It doesn't have a rational basis in logic or science, thought it might make some people more comfortable with their skepticism.
Atheism is the position that, based on currently available evidence, there is no basis to consider any deity to be real. This could change as new evidence comes to light, of course. That is a quality you will not find in theism or agnosticism.
As I said in my first post, most atheists that I speak to don't put this much thought and care into their atheism. They just take it for granted that it won't be challenged.
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
If I wanted to make a claim about something, say that two bricks tied together will fall at the same rate as a single brick, I first have to make this my working hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that what I'm asserting is not true (in this case the null is that the bricks will fall at different rates). It's up to me to provide the evidence. If there isn't enough (or any) evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
When it comes to religion, it is the theologian who is making the claim. Thus, his working hypothesis is, "God exists." In searching for evidence, however, we come up with nothing. Thus we must fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is, "God does not exist."
Agnosticism is really the position that the an affirmative statement on the matter of deities is impossible to know. It doesn't have a rational basis in logic or science, thought it might make some people more comfortable with their skepticism.
Atheism is the position that, based on currently available evidence, there is no basis to consider any deity to be real. This could change as new evidence comes to light, of course. That is a quality you will not find in theism or agnosticism.
As I said in my first post, most atheists that I speak to don't put this much thought and care into their atheism. They just take it for granted that it won't be challenged.
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
Sounds Good
Apr 6, 09:42 AM
What do you DO with your Windows box?
Web development, website management, domain name management, some graphics, some photography, lots of asking questions on forums. :)
What applications are important to you?
Firefox. Wordpress. MS Excel. MS Word. Notepad. Domain Name software (Windows only). Photoshop. Lightroom. CuteFTP. MS FrontPage (yep, really). TeamViewer. Slysoft AnyDVD and CloneDVD.
Web development, website management, domain name management, some graphics, some photography, lots of asking questions on forums. :)
What applications are important to you?
Firefox. Wordpress. MS Excel. MS Word. Notepad. Domain Name software (Windows only). Photoshop. Lightroom. CuteFTP. MS FrontPage (yep, really). TeamViewer. Slysoft AnyDVD and CloneDVD.
CalBoy
Apr 23, 05:45 PM
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
Multimedia
Oct 12, 12:00 PM
The one I ordered the other day shipped yesterday and I'm expecting delivery on monday. I requested the forum coupon and will see if they will credit me. But I don't know. i'm not planning on going through the brain damage of ordering another monitor with the coupon and sending one back just to save ~$100.
I currently have a 30" Dell that I bought last year when Dell first introduced them. I love the thing... My only gripe is 1 stuck pixel, but Dell requires like 7 or more to replace and I didn't swap the monitor within my 30-day window because the pixel didn't show up until after nearly 3 months. :(
I have an Apple 30" on my other G5 quad and I've never had the two side by side, but I think I like the Dell one better. I use a Gefen 4x1 DVI-DL switcher and have the G5 and two PC systems connected to the Dell with an extra cable for my MBP or whatnot if I want to connect that. I ordered the second 30" because I'm going to expand my desktop to dual 30" displays. :D I had to order another Gefen switcher for the second monitor too since the G5 and one of my PC boxes both support dual-link DVI out of both DVI ports as will the Mac Pro I'm planning to buy in the near future.Wow I didn't even know such an accessory existed:
Gefen 4x1 DVI DL Switcher (Parallel Control) $899 (http://www.gefen.com/kvm/product.jsp?prod_id=3499)
But the price is almost that of another screen! Holy Moly. You have a better place to buy it for less with link please?
So you gonna go with the ATI Dual Dual Link DVI Card on your Mac Pro? What card do you have in your Quad. I bought mine refurb and Apple doesn't sell a Dual Dual Link video card for it for post-purchase upgrade that I know of. Do you? Could just buy another cheap NVIDEA GeForce 6600 card that is missing the noisy fan. Don't do 3-D or games.
I currently have a 30" Dell that I bought last year when Dell first introduced them. I love the thing... My only gripe is 1 stuck pixel, but Dell requires like 7 or more to replace and I didn't swap the monitor within my 30-day window because the pixel didn't show up until after nearly 3 months. :(
I have an Apple 30" on my other G5 quad and I've never had the two side by side, but I think I like the Dell one better. I use a Gefen 4x1 DVI-DL switcher and have the G5 and two PC systems connected to the Dell with an extra cable for my MBP or whatnot if I want to connect that. I ordered the second 30" because I'm going to expand my desktop to dual 30" displays. :D I had to order another Gefen switcher for the second monitor too since the G5 and one of my PC boxes both support dual-link DVI out of both DVI ports as will the Mac Pro I'm planning to buy in the near future.Wow I didn't even know such an accessory existed:
Gefen 4x1 DVI DL Switcher (Parallel Control) $899 (http://www.gefen.com/kvm/product.jsp?prod_id=3499)
But the price is almost that of another screen! Holy Moly. You have a better place to buy it for less with link please?
So you gonna go with the ATI Dual Dual Link DVI Card on your Mac Pro? What card do you have in your Quad. I bought mine refurb and Apple doesn't sell a Dual Dual Link video card for it for post-purchase upgrade that I know of. Do you? Could just buy another cheap NVIDEA GeForce 6600 card that is missing the noisy fan. Don't do 3-D or games.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 23, 03:42 PM
The word translated "day" can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period.
I think ancient Jews thought each day began at dawn and ended at sunset. If I'm right, they would have thought summer days were longer than winter ones.
Our Lord died died on Good Friday and rose on Easter, but does anyone know exactly what time he rose? The Bible says he rose on the third day. Say he died at 3:00 PM. on Friday. Then a 24-hour day from his death would end at 3:00 PM on Saturday, and another 24-hour day would end at 3:00 PM on Sunday. That's only two 24-hour days. We say it's daytime when the sun is shining and that it's nighttime when it's dark outdoors. Even we talk as though the word "day" stands sometimes stands for less than 24 hours.
Many of the Bible's atheistic critics oversimplify because the ignore the Bible's literary genres, the meanings of ancient expressions, cultural details, and other details. If you say something, your sentence, the string of words, differs from what it means. That's why you can translate a sentence from one language to another. When you translate a sentence from English to French, the French sentence needs to mean what the English one means, or there's something wrong with the translation.
To know what, say, Genesis 1:1 means, you need to know what its author meant by the words it consists of. If you impose a 21st-century meaning on a sentence that meant something else when the author wrote it, you're misinterpreting what he said.
You and I see three colored objects and three people. You tell me, "Bill, Green is the third one from the left." You're talking about the third person, a man named "Joe Green," when I think you're talking about the third colored object. Green is the color of the third object from the left. The word "Green" is the last name of the man who's third from the left. The proposition "Green is the third one from the left" is true in both cases, but the string of words means one thing when you talk about the man. It means something else when you're talking about the green object. To find out which truth you're telling me, I need you to tell me that you're talking about the colored object.
You wake at 7:00 AM on Friday. The next calendar day begins at midnight, but there's only 17 hours between 7 AM and midnight. Truth is objective, but the meanings of words, phrases, and sentences depend on context. So do the referents of the words, the people, places, or things that words, phrases, and sentences denote.
I think ancient Jews thought each day began at dawn and ended at sunset. If I'm right, they would have thought summer days were longer than winter ones.
Our Lord died died on Good Friday and rose on Easter, but does anyone know exactly what time he rose? The Bible says he rose on the third day. Say he died at 3:00 PM. on Friday. Then a 24-hour day from his death would end at 3:00 PM on Saturday, and another 24-hour day would end at 3:00 PM on Sunday. That's only two 24-hour days. We say it's daytime when the sun is shining and that it's nighttime when it's dark outdoors. Even we talk as though the word "day" stands sometimes stands for less than 24 hours.
Many of the Bible's atheistic critics oversimplify because the ignore the Bible's literary genres, the meanings of ancient expressions, cultural details, and other details. If you say something, your sentence, the string of words, differs from what it means. That's why you can translate a sentence from one language to another. When you translate a sentence from English to French, the French sentence needs to mean what the English one means, or there's something wrong with the translation.
To know what, say, Genesis 1:1 means, you need to know what its author meant by the words it consists of. If you impose a 21st-century meaning on a sentence that meant something else when the author wrote it, you're misinterpreting what he said.
You and I see three colored objects and three people. You tell me, "Bill, Green is the third one from the left." You're talking about the third person, a man named "Joe Green," when I think you're talking about the third colored object. Green is the color of the third object from the left. The word "Green" is the last name of the man who's third from the left. The proposition "Green is the third one from the left" is true in both cases, but the string of words means one thing when you talk about the man. It means something else when you're talking about the green object. To find out which truth you're telling me, I need you to tell me that you're talking about the colored object.
You wake at 7:00 AM on Friday. The next calendar day begins at midnight, but there's only 17 hours between 7 AM and midnight. Truth is objective, but the meanings of words, phrases, and sentences depend on context. So do the referents of the words, the people, places, or things that words, phrases, and sentences denote.
G58
Oct 8, 03:32 AM
Three questions:
Are Gartner talking about the US market or the World market?
Is this guess based on 40 different Android handsets?
What number of iPhone carriers did they model?
This is not only the kind of dumb prediction that so exercises Nassim Talib, it is utterly meaningless and almost certainly wrong.
If you look at the two platforms, it's clear one [Apple's iPhone] is on a clear path that's now 28 months old. The other [Google et al's Android] is barely out of diapers, with one model down and the latest not exactly pulling up any tree roots yet.
The old 'build it and they will come' maxim only works if what you're selling is what people want. And that's the great unknown. Actually it's an unknowable unknown. But we do have some clues.
Apple has a loyal following and a great reputation for selling reliable software and hardware in one package. And that, as anyone who's bought a Nokia from Orange UK recently will know, is a much better solution. Oh, and women won't buy anything called 'Android'.
I have no idea what shape the Android market will be in in two years time, but I predict two things: With 40 different models, each with a vast array of different functionality, from any number of manufacturers, they have a compatibility nightmare on their hands, and absolutely no chance of creating any kind of buzz. Indeed, Microsoft have a better chance with whatever vision of ugliness they eventually spew out!
So, my fellow Macrumors posters, how about a wager?
I predict the true situation by 2012 will not be as Gartner suggest. I believe Apple will have their iPhone available all over the World with multiple carriers in each region, and that Apple's iPhone App, not Android will be in the number one spot. Indeed, I question whether the experiment will grow much beyond a techie wet dream.
I also predict that the Kindle will end up remaindered by the end of 2012. The only thing that might upset this is if they pull a colour screen and better battery out of the bag, and beat Apple's iPad on features and price. I don't see Amazon making that level of R&D investment, or being capable of leveraging that kind of buying power - ever.
Are Gartner talking about the US market or the World market?
Is this guess based on 40 different Android handsets?
What number of iPhone carriers did they model?
This is not only the kind of dumb prediction that so exercises Nassim Talib, it is utterly meaningless and almost certainly wrong.
If you look at the two platforms, it's clear one [Apple's iPhone] is on a clear path that's now 28 months old. The other [Google et al's Android] is barely out of diapers, with one model down and the latest not exactly pulling up any tree roots yet.
The old 'build it and they will come' maxim only works if what you're selling is what people want. And that's the great unknown. Actually it's an unknowable unknown. But we do have some clues.
Apple has a loyal following and a great reputation for selling reliable software and hardware in one package. And that, as anyone who's bought a Nokia from Orange UK recently will know, is a much better solution. Oh, and women won't buy anything called 'Android'.
I have no idea what shape the Android market will be in in two years time, but I predict two things: With 40 different models, each with a vast array of different functionality, from any number of manufacturers, they have a compatibility nightmare on their hands, and absolutely no chance of creating any kind of buzz. Indeed, Microsoft have a better chance with whatever vision of ugliness they eventually spew out!
So, my fellow Macrumors posters, how about a wager?
I predict the true situation by 2012 will not be as Gartner suggest. I believe Apple will have their iPhone available all over the World with multiple carriers in each region, and that Apple's iPhone App, not Android will be in the number one spot. Indeed, I question whether the experiment will grow much beyond a techie wet dream.
I also predict that the Kindle will end up remaindered by the end of 2012. The only thing that might upset this is if they pull a colour screen and better battery out of the bag, and beat Apple's iPad on features and price. I don't see Amazon making that level of R&D investment, or being capable of leveraging that kind of buying power - ever.
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:23 AM
You are just being disingenuous. I think you just did not quote the part that says it is only OK with the Catholic church if gay men and women do not give physical expression to their gay "inclinations".
Sorry, but do you not see how horrid this position is?
"We won't hate you, as long as you deny who you are."
Jesus H. Christ.
Sorry, but do you not see how horrid this position is?
"We won't hate you, as long as you deny who you are."
Jesus H. Christ.
Evangelion
Jul 13, 08:55 AM
Fine - use the E6400 which is $224 in bulk or the E6600 which is $316 @ 2.6Ghz. The point is I would like an iMac without the LCD and all the other bells a whistles with a Graphics slot. If they can't do that for $1200 then Apple needs to pack up shop. Dell can do it for less than $1000 (Dual core 930 @ 3Ghz) so saying I'm willing to pay $200 in Apple tax is about as far as I'm willing to go.
930 is a netburst-CPU (P4) and those are absoluitely dirt-cheap these days, dual-core or not. Intel is basically donating them to OEM's these days. Not so with Conroe.
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?
That said, I would like to see a Apple minitower-system that uses the Conroe. It wont be as cheap as Dell, since whereas Dell might cut corners everywhere, Apple simply does not. Even their cheapest system (Mini for example) are very refined. Could you imagine an Apple-system that is made from cheap plastic (like this HP-system standing next to me)? I sure as hell can't.
930 is a netburst-CPU (P4) and those are absoluitely dirt-cheap these days, dual-core or not. Intel is basically donating them to OEM's these days. Not so with Conroe.
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?
That said, I would like to see a Apple minitower-system that uses the Conroe. It wont be as cheap as Dell, since whereas Dell might cut corners everywhere, Apple simply does not. Even their cheapest system (Mini for example) are very refined. Could you imagine an Apple-system that is made from cheap plastic (like this HP-system standing next to me)? I sure as hell can't.
capvideo
Mar 20, 01:32 PM
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
leomac08
Mar 11, 07:25 PM
I pray that this will not turn into another Chernobyl situation.
how far is Sendai from Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
so much radiation!!!:eek:
how far is Sendai from Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
so much radiation!!!:eek:
Sounds Good
Apr 6, 02:26 PM
Oh, and for the person who made the "troll" post... seriously??? The OP put "for switchers only" because he wants to hear from people who have actually made the decision to switch. He wants to learn from their experiences as opposed to just getting bashed by Apple fanboys who'll belittle his question and not provide any genuine help.
Bingo. This is EXACTLY right.
Anyway...
I spent some time at an Apple store today. I messed around with the Macbook Air machines mostly. It's gonna take a few visits to have a better idea of things.
Frankly I'm a little bummed, since I was quite tempted to get a Mac -- pretty soon, in fact. Now I'm really not so sure. I (personally) might be better off with Windows 7. Not sure.
One thing I learned while at the Apple store: I'm pretty sure I'll be getting an iPad 2. :)
Bingo. This is EXACTLY right.
Anyway...
I spent some time at an Apple store today. I messed around with the Macbook Air machines mostly. It's gonna take a few visits to have a better idea of things.
Frankly I'm a little bummed, since I was quite tempted to get a Mac -- pretty soon, in fact. Now I'm really not so sure. I (personally) might be better off with Windows 7. Not sure.
One thing I learned while at the Apple store: I'm pretty sure I'll be getting an iPad 2. :)
rasmasyean
Mar 11, 04:27 AM
Live Coverage here...
http://www.youtube.com/aljazeeraenglish?feature=ticker
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42025198#42025198
http://www.youtube.com/aljazeeraenglish?feature=ticker
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42025198#42025198
Groovey
Aug 30, 03:48 AM
I think people are missing the point....
Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:
Is 99 for your year of birth? It's not like there's ten of them. You've probably had too many nightmares about Woodstock.
Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:
Is 99 for your year of birth? It's not like there's ten of them. You've probably had too many nightmares about Woodstock.
javajedi
Oct 11, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by javajedi
What you are saying makes a lot of sense. Now that I think about, I too recall reading this somewhere.
Now that we know the real truth about the "better standard FPU", I thought it was time to shed some light on non vectorized G4 integer processing.
It still does 200,000,000 calculations, but this time I'm multiplying ints.
Motorola 7455 G4@800Mhz: 9 seconds (Native)
IBM 750FX G3@700Mhz: 7 seconds (Native)
Intel P4@2600Mhz 2 seconds (Java)
PowerPC 7455 integer processing is consierabley better than floating point (obviously less work doing ints), but still less per cycle than the Pentium 4.
Very intresting the G4 looses both floating point and integer to the IBM chip, at a 100MHz clock disadvantage.
I'm still waiting to see that "better standard FPU" in the G4. It seems the G4 is absolutely useless unless you are fortunate to have vectorized (AltiVec) code.
Alex, yeah, the native version was compiled under 3.1. It really is interesting to note that despite the 750FX's 100MHz clock disadvantage, it is able to outperform it by 22%. Since there is a 13% difference in clock speed, and if clocks were equal, the 750FX is technically 25% more efficient in scalar integer. I should also re-emphasize that I never bothered compiling the test natively for x86, I left it java, so it's not out of the question the P4 could do this in 1 second - and that is *NOT* using any vector libraries, just plain old integer math.
I've found some documentation on the Altivec C programming interface, and this weekend I'm going to make a first attempt at vectorizing it. The integer test should be no problem, but my FPMathTest app that did square roots will be more difficult. With Altivec, there is not recognized double precision floating point, so this complicates doing square roots. If you want more accurate, precision square roots, you have to do Newton Raphson refinement. In other words more ************ you have to go through. I believe in SSE2 you have double precision floating point ops, and if you were to vectorize it, you wouldn't have to compensate for this.
Another theory as to why the P4 is scoring so good is because if I'm not mistaking (and I'm not), the P4's ALU runs at double its clock. So in my case, 5.6GHz. I'm sure this relates to the issue.
I don't know how true this is, but I wouldn't be suprised if there is some truth to it, surely some food for thought:
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/17368.html
The G4 was just a hacked-up G3 with AltiVec and an FPU (floating point unit) borrowed from the outdated 604
If this is the case, then no wonder why we are getting these abysmal scores, and no wonder why a 400mhz Celeron can nearly equal it, and no wonder why the 750FX can outperform it (different company, different fpu)
What you are saying makes a lot of sense. Now that I think about, I too recall reading this somewhere.
Now that we know the real truth about the "better standard FPU", I thought it was time to shed some light on non vectorized G4 integer processing.
It still does 200,000,000 calculations, but this time I'm multiplying ints.
Motorola 7455 G4@800Mhz: 9 seconds (Native)
IBM 750FX G3@700Mhz: 7 seconds (Native)
Intel P4@2600Mhz 2 seconds (Java)
PowerPC 7455 integer processing is consierabley better than floating point (obviously less work doing ints), but still less per cycle than the Pentium 4.
Very intresting the G4 looses both floating point and integer to the IBM chip, at a 100MHz clock disadvantage.
I'm still waiting to see that "better standard FPU" in the G4. It seems the G4 is absolutely useless unless you are fortunate to have vectorized (AltiVec) code.
Alex, yeah, the native version was compiled under 3.1. It really is interesting to note that despite the 750FX's 100MHz clock disadvantage, it is able to outperform it by 22%. Since there is a 13% difference in clock speed, and if clocks were equal, the 750FX is technically 25% more efficient in scalar integer. I should also re-emphasize that I never bothered compiling the test natively for x86, I left it java, so it's not out of the question the P4 could do this in 1 second - and that is *NOT* using any vector libraries, just plain old integer math.
I've found some documentation on the Altivec C programming interface, and this weekend I'm going to make a first attempt at vectorizing it. The integer test should be no problem, but my FPMathTest app that did square roots will be more difficult. With Altivec, there is not recognized double precision floating point, so this complicates doing square roots. If you want more accurate, precision square roots, you have to do Newton Raphson refinement. In other words more ************ you have to go through. I believe in SSE2 you have double precision floating point ops, and if you were to vectorize it, you wouldn't have to compensate for this.
Another theory as to why the P4 is scoring so good is because if I'm not mistaking (and I'm not), the P4's ALU runs at double its clock. So in my case, 5.6GHz. I'm sure this relates to the issue.
I don't know how true this is, but I wouldn't be suprised if there is some truth to it, surely some food for thought:
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/17368.html
The G4 was just a hacked-up G3 with AltiVec and an FPU (floating point unit) borrowed from the outdated 604
If this is the case, then no wonder why we are getting these abysmal scores, and no wonder why a 400mhz Celeron can nearly equal it, and no wonder why the 750FX can outperform it (different company, different fpu)
Speedy2
Oct 7, 05:28 PM
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft.
Well I think the original argument was not about Apple copying MSs success. I think we all agree that indeed MS got extremely lucky (but also showed a lot of skill and ruthlessness in exploiting that luck). However, the original argument was more about whether Mac OS would enjoy a higher market share if it were open to PCs. It probably would if Apple supported only "certified systems" to avoid driver issues. In any case, it is extremly unlikely that this is going to happen and therefore pure, rather meaningless speculation. :)
Well I think the original argument was not about Apple copying MSs success. I think we all agree that indeed MS got extremely lucky (but also showed a lot of skill and ruthlessness in exploiting that luck). However, the original argument was more about whether Mac OS would enjoy a higher market share if it were open to PCs. It probably would if Apple supported only "certified systems" to avoid driver issues. In any case, it is extremly unlikely that this is going to happen and therefore pure, rather meaningless speculation. :)
kas23
Apr 28, 07:43 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2 like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C134 Safari/6533.18.5)
I dont think iPads should be included. A computer shouldn't need a computer to be usable.
I fully agree with this. It's not a full-fledged computer.
As for the slip to 4th, so much for the end of the netbook market. In fact, I can see myself buying a netbook in addition to my iPad 2 because there are a bunch of functions a netbook can do that an iPad cannot (such as adding and editing music into iBooks and Stanza, downloading music and placing them into iPod app, obtaining files without an Internet connection or iTunes - a USB, etc.)
I dont think iPads should be included. A computer shouldn't need a computer to be usable.
I fully agree with this. It's not a full-fledged computer.
As for the slip to 4th, so much for the end of the netbook market. In fact, I can see myself buying a netbook in addition to my iPad 2 because there are a bunch of functions a netbook can do that an iPad cannot (such as adding and editing music into iBooks and Stanza, downloading music and placing them into iPod app, obtaining files without an Internet connection or iTunes - a USB, etc.)
marmotmammal
Apr 12, 11:31 PM
A lot of speculation on this thread. I realize we're all impatient for more info. Apple said FCP X is a rewrite from the ground up. When that happens, it's a like a newborn, got to nurture it.
FCP X is 64-bit, the Suite isn't. FCP X is the future, with Lion and Thunderbolt, maybe an end to Rosetta and legacy apps. Sometimes got to dump the old to make way for the new.
Some folks might not like FCP X, stay with FCP 6 or 7. Apple (and anybody else who rewrites) takes big chances. Maybe some users will bail, go to A**** or A***. Some users will stick it out, ride along with FCP X from the inception and see where it goes. Maybe it'll get bigger, become a toddler and beyond.
FCP X is 64-bit, the Suite isn't. FCP X is the future, with Lion and Thunderbolt, maybe an end to Rosetta and legacy apps. Sometimes got to dump the old to make way for the new.
Some folks might not like FCP X, stay with FCP 6 or 7. Apple (and anybody else who rewrites) takes big chances. Maybe some users will bail, go to A**** or A***. Some users will stick it out, ride along with FCP X from the inception and see where it goes. Maybe it'll get bigger, become a toddler and beyond.
grue
Apr 12, 10:54 PM
I'm the angriest Mac user / professional FCP user I know, and even I'm blown away. Are there things I'm curious to see how they work out? Sure. But overall� wow.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 10:28 AM
Agreed. But you know what, some people deserve not one ounce of respect. The minute one crosses that line with me, and takes the liberty to label me as a self-hater, guess what, you've successfully lit a fire under my *** and I'm gonna talk back at you in a fitting way. Point blank.
You can go ahead and read thru all my posts in MacRumors and you'll see that I'm not a negative whiner, or one quick to disrespect others. But I have zero tolerance for people that are quick to label or judge me for my views.
Just one more reason to not belong to a pressure group like "LGBTAQ". Different opinions are not tolerated. There's no competition of ideas or checks and balances in a situation like that.
Case in point. You sound like someone who might be even tangentially sympathetic to the ex-gay movement. Don't want to put any words in your mouth but I have a feeling you at least tolerate its existence and feel they have a right to their own opinion. Well, the LGBT folks can't tolerate anyone having an idea like that - they'll even organize and boycott and pressure Apple until they remove some lame, lonely little app from the App Store.
Meanwhile - need to find a glory hole or a cruising area nearby? There's an App for That!
You can go ahead and read thru all my posts in MacRumors and you'll see that I'm not a negative whiner, or one quick to disrespect others. But I have zero tolerance for people that are quick to label or judge me for my views.
Just one more reason to not belong to a pressure group like "LGBTAQ". Different opinions are not tolerated. There's no competition of ideas or checks and balances in a situation like that.
Case in point. You sound like someone who might be even tangentially sympathetic to the ex-gay movement. Don't want to put any words in your mouth but I have a feeling you at least tolerate its existence and feel they have a right to their own opinion. Well, the LGBT folks can't tolerate anyone having an idea like that - they'll even organize and boycott and pressure Apple until they remove some lame, lonely little app from the App Store.
Meanwhile - need to find a glory hole or a cruising area nearby? There's an App for That!
puma1552
Mar 14, 01:04 AM
Yea, this is one of the few controversial posts I've made here, I expected some criticism, and likely deserve it as I definitely don't get the whole picture, then again who does.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.
Heavyhitter504
Mar 18, 11:31 AM
I actually paid for MyWi and I only use it to tether my iPad. I use it instead of (not in addition to) my iPhone and only when wifi is not available.
This is what I do, I'm on the "unlimited" plan and I haven't received any text or email regarding the warning about tethering, i hope it's because I dont surpass the 5 gb cap
This is what I do, I'm on the "unlimited" plan and I haven't received any text or email regarding the warning about tethering, i hope it's because I dont surpass the 5 gb cap
