Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 10:53 PM
It was not a Latin sentence, so it was certainly meaningless in Latin. If you look up "sign", as a noun meaning signification, and instead choose the first person singular of the Latin verb meaning "sign a letter", you are not off to a very promising start. Cicero would be rolling in his grave.
I know the difference between a sign and what it signifies. But even if a group of words doesn't form a sentence, that group differs from the proposition the writer is trying to state with it. That's why you can translate a sentence from one language to another language. If I'm only beginning to learn French, I may say something that may be ungrammatical literally meaningless. But my teacher or another expert in the French language may know what it is I'm trying to say with it. Skunk seems to be talking mostly about a signifier, the group of words, when I'm talking mostly about what Caocao intended to signify with it. When someone says something I don't understand, I'll ask the speaker or the to rephrase it. I just realized that I misspelled CaoCao's screen name. But I'm sure you guys knew whom the misspelled name stood for.
I know the difference between a sign and what it signifies. But even if a group of words doesn't form a sentence, that group differs from the proposition the writer is trying to state with it. That's why you can translate a sentence from one language to another language. If I'm only beginning to learn French, I may say something that may be ungrammatical literally meaningless. But my teacher or another expert in the French language may know what it is I'm trying to say with it. Skunk seems to be talking mostly about a signifier, the group of words, when I'm talking mostly about what Caocao intended to signify with it. When someone says something I don't understand, I'll ask the speaker or the to rephrase it. I just realized that I misspelled CaoCao's screen name. But I'm sure you guys knew whom the misspelled name stood for.
ehoui
Apr 27, 05:59 PM
No gods exist. There is not a shred of evidence, ontological or otherwise.
Perhaps we do not possess the mental capacity to observe or understand that he (or they) exist? How can one be sure that we do?
Perhaps we do not possess the mental capacity to observe or understand that he (or they) exist? How can one be sure that we do?
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
dgree03
Apr 28, 08:21 AM
Please elaborate LTD.
What do you mean by entire market? :confused:
Lets see the spin artist spin this faster than the Tazmanian Devil. (grabs popcorn)
What do you mean by entire market? :confused:
Lets see the spin artist spin this faster than the Tazmanian Devil. (grabs popcorn)
samcraig
Mar 18, 09:16 AM
Enjoy Greedy corporate thieves who break the law because they're big enough to do so, emptying your wallet.
You clearly have no knowledge of law whatsoever. AT&T made the biggest mistake of it's existence when it stupidly offered an Unlimited data plan, and then decided it couldn't support it. Since then, they've done everything in their power to back out of it.
No matter what fine print they include in the contract, they cannot sell an unlimited data plan, and then limit it, in any way. I have the legal right to jailbreak phone, and I have the the contractual permission to use unlimited amounts of data from AT&T.
Ironically, my monthly usage could be more than 3-4 gigabytes anyway...but that's not even close to the point. The point is how I use the data, and I have every right under the sun to use this data how I see fit. For web browsing, for location apps, for email, or for tethering.
AT&T has no ability, under my contract, to invent a new category of usage in an attempt to limit my unlimited data. BUZZZZ! Wrong. Illegal. Breach.
You yourself can grow up, adults don't lie down to be taken advantage of. Only little scared children do that.
They didn't invent a new category. It's been there - and has always been in the TOS you signed. See the real problem (aside from your 5 year old tantrum) is that most people don't read the TOS before they sign.
The TOS are long, would take a long time to read and process. But consumers are too quick to just want the shiny new toy in their hands and sign away not realizing what they're signing.
But at the end of the day - that's not the company's fault. They are LEGALLY required to provide these documents so that a consumer CAN make decisions based on the terms.
Just like Apple MUST restate their TOS when they change/update iTunes with new features, etc.
But most people just click through and only "cry" post-facto when they get caught in something they feel is "unfair"
As a whole, most of the general public has been trained to be lazy - and that's why lawyers make a mint with frivolous lawsuits - regardless of merit or whether or not whatever side wins.
So back to your point - you signed a contract which outlined SPECIFIC usage for your unlimited data. ATT is now enforcing those policies. The fact that they waited or didn't enforce them previously is irrelevant.
You clearly have no knowledge of law whatsoever. AT&T made the biggest mistake of it's existence when it stupidly offered an Unlimited data plan, and then decided it couldn't support it. Since then, they've done everything in their power to back out of it.
No matter what fine print they include in the contract, they cannot sell an unlimited data plan, and then limit it, in any way. I have the legal right to jailbreak phone, and I have the the contractual permission to use unlimited amounts of data from AT&T.
Ironically, my monthly usage could be more than 3-4 gigabytes anyway...but that's not even close to the point. The point is how I use the data, and I have every right under the sun to use this data how I see fit. For web browsing, for location apps, for email, or for tethering.
AT&T has no ability, under my contract, to invent a new category of usage in an attempt to limit my unlimited data. BUZZZZ! Wrong. Illegal. Breach.
You yourself can grow up, adults don't lie down to be taken advantage of. Only little scared children do that.
They didn't invent a new category. It's been there - and has always been in the TOS you signed. See the real problem (aside from your 5 year old tantrum) is that most people don't read the TOS before they sign.
The TOS are long, would take a long time to read and process. But consumers are too quick to just want the shiny new toy in their hands and sign away not realizing what they're signing.
But at the end of the day - that's not the company's fault. They are LEGALLY required to provide these documents so that a consumer CAN make decisions based on the terms.
Just like Apple MUST restate their TOS when they change/update iTunes with new features, etc.
But most people just click through and only "cry" post-facto when they get caught in something they feel is "unfair"
As a whole, most of the general public has been trained to be lazy - and that's why lawyers make a mint with frivolous lawsuits - regardless of merit or whether or not whatever side wins.
So back to your point - you signed a contract which outlined SPECIFIC usage for your unlimited data. ATT is now enforcing those policies. The fact that they waited or didn't enforce them previously is irrelevant.
c.hilding
Oct 27, 01:14 AM
You are right Multimedia, it's too early to worry about the FSB, we don't even know what rate they've put it at yet. ;)
BubbaMc
Apr 13, 03:45 AM
What are the chances that Logic X will be released around the same time?
TheFink
Oct 10, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant
My arse is capable of making 8-pound turds, but whether or not I eat enough baked beans to take advantage of that is another issue entirely. In other words,
18 gigaflops = about as likely as an 8-pound turd in my toilet. Possible, yes (under the most severely ridiculous condtions). Real-world, no.
Do you have any pics of your closest attempt at an 8 lb turd?
My arse is capable of making 8-pound turds, but whether or not I eat enough baked beans to take advantage of that is another issue entirely. In other words,
18 gigaflops = about as likely as an 8-pound turd in my toilet. Possible, yes (under the most severely ridiculous condtions). Real-world, no.
Do you have any pics of your closest attempt at an 8 lb turd?
macfan881
Feb 23, 05:10 PM
The droid Phones are great but the one problem that remains with them that makes the iPhone so much better are the Apps I have not seen one app on the droid market place that says wow that looks great, granted the market place is new but still even the iPhone had better working/Looking apps in its first release than the android.
skunk
Mar 28, 12:10 PM
Being-green-eyed isn't part of your essence. Neither is being-homosexual. But If you lost one or more essential properties, i.e., one or more parts of your essence, you would stop existing.
Being-H20 is an essential property that water has. Something is water if and only if it's H2O. All water is H2O, and all H2O is water. So if you remove one or more atoms from any water molecule, then you destroy that water molecule, and it stops existing. After all, nothing can be both water and not water at the same time.Your arguments are becoming more bizarre by the minute. I have no idea what you are on about. What is this "essence" of which you speak? :confused:
Being-H20 is an essential property that water has. Something is water if and only if it's H2O. All water is H2O, and all H2O is water. So if you remove one or more atoms from any water molecule, then you destroy that water molecule, and it stops existing. After all, nothing can be both water and not water at the same time.Your arguments are becoming more bizarre by the minute. I have no idea what you are on about. What is this "essence" of which you speak? :confused:
hunkaburningluv
Apr 9, 04:00 PM
The problem with your view is that Nintendo is a JAPANESE corporation and they are still the boss over the USA counterpart. Apple has to kiss Japan's ass first to do that. I heard a very old story from the 1990s that Microsoft tried to buy them out which Nintendo of Japan's CEO, at the time, discussed and revealed in an interview.
Guess what? Nintendo of Japan gave Ballmer the finger. Secondly, Nintendo and Apple could partner up in a deal, theoretically, but a buyout will never happen. And no, the Daimler/Chrysler situation is not a good comparison for this industry.
there was also talk that both would share platform specs but market to different audiences too - it was never meant to be
Ninty have always made serious money from their hardware and no other gaming company can say that - usually they make a loss with the consoles and make the cash back up with licensing further down the road. No other platform (game wise) can say that. Ninty has enough money now from the wii and the ds/dsi to endure they are around for at least another few generations - they won't 'do a sega' and end up software (crappy at that) only.
Guess what? Nintendo of Japan gave Ballmer the finger. Secondly, Nintendo and Apple could partner up in a deal, theoretically, but a buyout will never happen. And no, the Daimler/Chrysler situation is not a good comparison for this industry.
there was also talk that both would share platform specs but market to different audiences too - it was never meant to be
Ninty have always made serious money from their hardware and no other gaming company can say that - usually they make a loss with the consoles and make the cash back up with licensing further down the road. No other platform (game wise) can say that. Ninty has enough money now from the wii and the ds/dsi to endure they are around for at least another few generations - they won't 'do a sega' and end up software (crappy at that) only.
latergator116
Mar 19, 05:27 PM
Your CD does not have DRM built in that you agreed to when purchasing the CD. Thus burning your CD is not a violation of the DMCA. Furthermore, the iTunes Music Store terms of service don't govern the usage of your CD collection.
Burning or ripping a CD does not bypass copy protection (unless it's one of those ridiculous anti-copy CDs which is a separate argument altogether), does not break encryption, and does not violate any laws as long as you are not redistributing the files. Breaking DRM on a digital file DOES break a law--specifically, that DRM protection cannot be bypassed or broken. Using PyMusique software DOES violate the iTMS terms of service, specifically that the iTMS is ONLY authorized through iTunes itself. Songs from iTunes have DRM and users are bound to the TOS. Those are the terms of the purchase, and doing anything to change that is a violation of international copyright laws.
Your analogy is invalid.
I could really care less about breaking some DRM law or "international copyright law". I would love to see them try to enforce it.
Burning or ripping a CD does not bypass copy protection (unless it's one of those ridiculous anti-copy CDs which is a separate argument altogether), does not break encryption, and does not violate any laws as long as you are not redistributing the files. Breaking DRM on a digital file DOES break a law--specifically, that DRM protection cannot be bypassed or broken. Using PyMusique software DOES violate the iTMS terms of service, specifically that the iTMS is ONLY authorized through iTunes itself. Songs from iTunes have DRM and users are bound to the TOS. Those are the terms of the purchase, and doing anything to change that is a violation of international copyright laws.
Your analogy is invalid.
I could really care less about breaking some DRM law or "international copyright law". I would love to see them try to enforce it.
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 15, 11:31 AM
I think one thing that would help the Gay community would be instead of focusing on how different they are focus on how much like everyone else they are. I live in one of the largest gay communities outside of San Fransisco, and as a straight male have nothing but the utmost respect and love for the Gay community. Its time though that they stepped up and said hey We are just like all of you!
DeepDish
Aug 29, 11:26 AM
How come Dells last half as long? Because they're "better made"? Do they not actually function any more? Or is it that you don't throw and Apple out because of sentimentality?
The only reason we\ve dumped computers at work is because they're not worth upgrading. In the last six months that's included one dell, two PowerMac G4s (although I claimed them) and six iMac G3s. They simply weren't up to (business) task anymore. The oldest computer we have in the office is actually a Dell that we use for one program.
Not out of sentimentality. The other pcs are so cheap, sometimes it is easier to just buy a new one.
The only reason we\ve dumped computers at work is because they're not worth upgrading. In the last six months that's included one dell, two PowerMac G4s (although I claimed them) and six iMac G3s. They simply weren't up to (business) task anymore. The oldest computer we have in the office is actually a Dell that we use for one program.
Not out of sentimentality. The other pcs are so cheap, sometimes it is easier to just buy a new one.
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:38 PM
I've never understood this. Do you really think there are Catholics in Africa who are saying "I really want to have pre-marital sex/sleep with this prostitute/rape this woman, but oh darn, the Pope says condoms are a sin"? Do you not see why that's a little strange?
This brand of obfuscation, while par for the course, is growing tiresome. The Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms, even to couples where one partner is HIV sero-positive, and the other is HIV sero-negative.
What's worse is that the Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms to non-married people, with the notion that because the invisible creator of the universe has a distaste for latex, an agonizing death from HIV/AIDS is an appropriate punishment for pre-marital sex.
The Catholic church doesn't care about people; it cares about sex. A group that cared about people would say "You should consider not having sex with multiple partners. However, human nature being what it is, if you do have sex with multiple partners, use a condom so that you don't end up dying from a horrible disease."
THAT would be a reasonable message.
If someone in the church actually lied about the efficacy of condoms, then shame on them, but I don't see what the point would be.
Not just "someone" in the church; we're talking about the Pope here.
I'm sure abstinence-only education doesn't "work" if you define "working" as guaranteeing no one will have sex before marriage then I'm sure you're right. But teaching kids that sex is serious and not a game might have positive effects you're not considering.
I absolutely agree with the last statement. Sex is serious, but not because an invisible god says so; because it is, in reality, serious.
Teach abstinence; but also teach that if you choose not to be abstinent, you should protect yourself. To do the former without the latter is inexcusably stupid.
You misunderstood, but maybe I could have worded it better. A person being raped makes an effort to resist, assuming they are conscious and able to resist. A person willfully having sex isn't going to resist. That passage eliminates the possibility of a person having willful sex and then claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences.
One is actually rape, the other isn't.
No, rape is rape.
But even if I grant you this point, the Bible still instructs us to kill adulterers. Do you support that?
This brand of obfuscation, while par for the course, is growing tiresome. The Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms, even to couples where one partner is HIV sero-positive, and the other is HIV sero-negative.
What's worse is that the Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms to non-married people, with the notion that because the invisible creator of the universe has a distaste for latex, an agonizing death from HIV/AIDS is an appropriate punishment for pre-marital sex.
The Catholic church doesn't care about people; it cares about sex. A group that cared about people would say "You should consider not having sex with multiple partners. However, human nature being what it is, if you do have sex with multiple partners, use a condom so that you don't end up dying from a horrible disease."
THAT would be a reasonable message.
If someone in the church actually lied about the efficacy of condoms, then shame on them, but I don't see what the point would be.
Not just "someone" in the church; we're talking about the Pope here.
I'm sure abstinence-only education doesn't "work" if you define "working" as guaranteeing no one will have sex before marriage then I'm sure you're right. But teaching kids that sex is serious and not a game might have positive effects you're not considering.
I absolutely agree with the last statement. Sex is serious, but not because an invisible god says so; because it is, in reality, serious.
Teach abstinence; but also teach that if you choose not to be abstinent, you should protect yourself. To do the former without the latter is inexcusably stupid.
You misunderstood, but maybe I could have worded it better. A person being raped makes an effort to resist, assuming they are conscious and able to resist. A person willfully having sex isn't going to resist. That passage eliminates the possibility of a person having willful sex and then claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences.
One is actually rape, the other isn't.
No, rape is rape.
But even if I grant you this point, the Bible still instructs us to kill adulterers. Do you support that?
Number 41
Apr 15, 09:56 AM
there is a very fine limit to it. Problem is a VERY VERY small percentage of people are going to take on 99% of the bulling.
Class of 30 students you will have 1 kid who is targeted. As that moves up to Jr high and high school the ratio gets even worse were you may find a 100 to 1 or higher ratio. That 1% has to take on 99% of the bulling and what makes it worse is that same 1% is not going to be helped or defended by others for fear of them being dragged into it and being the target as well. It is ugly. I was on the receiving side.
It is one thing for minor picking on things from friends but another for bulling.
And, for many in that 1%, it's never going to stop until they learn to deal with it -- you can stop bullying in schools, but once you get out in the real world it becomes a much more difficult thing. You can't shield people from hate / fear / dislike or being singled out for being different. You can try to educate, you can try to get people to stop, but at the end of the day there will always be bullies and there will always be people being picked on.
Developing coping skills is far more important than efforts to end bullying -- you can help yourself, you can't force someone else to be nice.
Class of 30 students you will have 1 kid who is targeted. As that moves up to Jr high and high school the ratio gets even worse were you may find a 100 to 1 or higher ratio. That 1% has to take on 99% of the bulling and what makes it worse is that same 1% is not going to be helped or defended by others for fear of them being dragged into it and being the target as well. It is ugly. I was on the receiving side.
It is one thing for minor picking on things from friends but another for bulling.
And, for many in that 1%, it's never going to stop until they learn to deal with it -- you can stop bullying in schools, but once you get out in the real world it becomes a much more difficult thing. You can't shield people from hate / fear / dislike or being singled out for being different. You can try to educate, you can try to get people to stop, but at the end of the day there will always be bullies and there will always be people being picked on.
Developing coping skills is far more important than efforts to end bullying -- you can help yourself, you can't force someone else to be nice.
rovex
Mar 12, 08:20 AM
Er,China leads the world in Nuclear generation design (not that I'm saying this is a good thing).
Let's put things into perspective...
60% of china's electricity is generated through the burning of coal - a heavy pollutant, which is not a renewable source. Thus not viable.
china has 9 nuclear power plants which account for 2% of chinas energy, whilst France has 59 plants accounting for 80% of the country's energy. And Nuclear power IS a viable form of energy in contrast to coal. And fundamentally better for the environment (although not totally unharmful).
Let's put things into perspective...
60% of china's electricity is generated through the burning of coal - a heavy pollutant, which is not a renewable source. Thus not viable.
china has 9 nuclear power plants which account for 2% of chinas energy, whilst France has 59 plants accounting for 80% of the country's energy. And Nuclear power IS a viable form of energy in contrast to coal. And fundamentally better for the environment (although not totally unharmful).
AppleScruff1
Apr 28, 02:58 PM
That makes me smile.. :)
You must be very young :D
It's funny as I'm sure the world of computing managed to perform quite well as did I with all my many computers, many many MANY years before the internet was around and in use my the public in any real numbers and we could download pictures of naked ladies :eek:
A PC can do anything and everything you want, It's a full computer, not a web browser.
But the internet brought p0rn mainstream. :D
You must be very young :D
It's funny as I'm sure the world of computing managed to perform quite well as did I with all my many computers, many many MANY years before the internet was around and in use my the public in any real numbers and we could download pictures of naked ladies :eek:
A PC can do anything and everything you want, It's a full computer, not a web browser.
But the internet brought p0rn mainstream. :D
faroZ06
May 2, 06:46 PM
Except this is not a virus. Some of you guys need a course on malware terminology. This is a trojan at best. Spyware at worst. Hardly a virus.
Exactly, everyone always talks about Macs being susceptible to viruses and viruses already existing for Macs, then they give the whole "market share" speech. I'm just sitting here virus and malware free laughing :p and most likely will be even if Apple gains market share. I'm a halftime Windows user, and I see soooo many security problems in it, but the MS fanboys blame market share!
I will say that market share DOES up the number of attacks on something, which is why Windows gets attacked so much, but it's also much much easier to attack than Mac OS.
Exactly, everyone always talks about Macs being susceptible to viruses and viruses already existing for Macs, then they give the whole "market share" speech. I'm just sitting here virus and malware free laughing :p and most likely will be even if Apple gains market share. I'm a halftime Windows user, and I see soooo many security problems in it, but the MS fanboys blame market share!
I will say that market share DOES up the number of attacks on something, which is why Windows gets attacked so much, but it's also much much easier to attack than Mac OS.
T'hain Esh Kelch
Sep 12, 03:38 PM
So basically this needs two things for me to buy it:
� You must be able to record from the TV, directly to your mac.
� It must replace Airport Express.
Im still not sure on the last one..
Optical drive isnt a biggie for me, since you can just stream from your Mac's Superdrive anyway.
And i like how they say 802.11 instead of 802.11g, which probably means we are gonna get 802.11n. Would also make sense why it isnt out now! :)
But why they are showing it of know.. Well.. Steve rreallyreallyreallyeally wanted to show of?
� You must be able to record from the TV, directly to your mac.
� It must replace Airport Express.
Im still not sure on the last one..
Optical drive isnt a biggie for me, since you can just stream from your Mac's Superdrive anyway.
And i like how they say 802.11 instead of 802.11g, which probably means we are gonna get 802.11n. Would also make sense why it isnt out now! :)
But why they are showing it of know.. Well.. Steve rreallyreallyreallyeally wanted to show of?
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
Alaerian
Apr 5, 06:00 PM
Don't read so much into it. Macs are perfectly capable of both copy/paste and Alt-Tab. However, Mac simply uses Command-Tab - Command is in the same place as the Alt key.
Under the Apple menu on the top toolbar, you can access both recently used programs and recently used files, just the same as in the Windows Start menu. It's essentially the same thing, but better.
Under the Apple menu on the top toolbar, you can access both recently used programs and recently used files, just the same as in the Windows Start menu. It's essentially the same thing, but better.
Alpinism
Oct 26, 09:07 AM
I am waiting for a quad core MP and a copy of FCS. I hope they make it before Xmas. THen, it would indeed be a glorious Xmas.
The move to intel shifts Apple paradigm for good. Expect your Apple computers and gadgets to be absolete much2 sooner
The move to intel shifts Apple paradigm for good. Expect your Apple computers and gadgets to be absolete much2 sooner
rhett7660
Mar 11, 10:13 AM
Not to mention the videos of it happening.
Wow.... Devastating to say the least.
Wow.... Devastating to say the least.