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
nixd2001
Oct 12, 06:09 PM
Just to keep the numbers rolling:
Justin Bieber CUT his HAIR
AidenShaw
Oct 29, 12:33 PM
[QUOTE=AidenShaw;2994604]For example:
Thread_ID tid[4];
for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++)
{
Grow togolden globes justin
justin bieber haircut,justin
JUSTIN BIEBER NEW HAIR 2011
Justin Bieber#39;s new hair-cut
justin beibers new hair
To get the Justin Bieber
justin bieber 2011 new haircut
Justin Bieber#39;s hair stylist,
Justin Bieber cut his sacred
Justin Bieber Hair Tips
Justin Bieber Hair Flip Slow
justin bieber new haircut 2011
Justin+ieber+2011+hair Justin
ieber haircut april 2011,
japan hair 2011
Justin Bieber#39;s making sure no
Thread_ID tid[4];
for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++)
{
citizenzen
Mar 15, 11:24 PM
Have I defined "contain" to your satisfaction?
Not really.
Here. I'll provide an example of equally insightful commentary ...
One day, this will all be over.
Not really.
Here. I'll provide an example of equally insightful commentary ...
One day, this will all be over.
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.)
G5isAlive
Mar 18, 08:07 AM
Tethering Charge not justified.
How can you say charging twice for the same Data is justified?
I pay for internet I use the internet. People have been brainwashed to side with the carriers.
You pay for a bottle of water $1
You pour it on your head then the person says Thats another $1 you owe
Why? because you used the same water you just bought to wash yourself not drink.
Its the same issue, Data = Data use is use, how you use should not be charged different since on the supply side makes no difference.
this is so twisted I cant tell you enough.:mad:
this analogy is so stretched as to make no sense.
but even water, there are residential rates and commercial rates... you can't mix the two .. there are limits and plans.
you arent paying for the same data twice. you are trying to change the agreement after the fact.
dont like the agreement. dont enter into it.
How can you say charging twice for the same Data is justified?
I pay for internet I use the internet. People have been brainwashed to side with the carriers.
You pay for a bottle of water $1
You pour it on your head then the person says Thats another $1 you owe
Why? because you used the same water you just bought to wash yourself not drink.
Its the same issue, Data = Data use is use, how you use should not be charged different since on the supply side makes no difference.
this is so twisted I cant tell you enough.:mad:
this analogy is so stretched as to make no sense.
but even water, there are residential rates and commercial rates... you can't mix the two .. there are limits and plans.
you arent paying for the same data twice. you are trying to change the agreement after the fact.
dont like the agreement. dont enter into it.
~Shard~
Sep 12, 03:45 PM
The iTV sounds great, however if I buy one I�m going to want to be able to utilize it to its fullest extent. And right now, living outside of the US, without access to TV shows on iTunes, let alone the new movies, it just doesn�t make sense for me to buy one. Hopefully things will change next year by the time it is released, but I have my doubts. As a result, there are going to have to be some other amazing features incorporated into this box to convince me to buy it, otherwise I�m not shelling out good money for a STB which Apple has essentially crippled for me. :cool:
BoyBach
Aug 29, 02:18 PM
- They've indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of starving Africans by preventing the development of genetically-engineered foods.
Do be frank you're talking crap! :mad:
There is more than enough food being produced and, more importantly, wasted to ensure that nobody goes to bed with an empty stomach. The reason millions, not thousands, of Africans have died, and continue to do so, are varied and complex.
But to simplify, as you have, surely the blame lies with corrupt African governments that line their own pockets with Western aid whilst their population die of disease and hunger? To 'save' Africa, the leadership needs to be strong, and it's main aim must be the well-being and protection of it's citizens.
GM foods will not save Africa and Greenpeace is not in any way responsible for the death of Africans from starvation for opposing GM research.
Do be frank you're talking crap! :mad:
There is more than enough food being produced and, more importantly, wasted to ensure that nobody goes to bed with an empty stomach. The reason millions, not thousands, of Africans have died, and continue to do so, are varied and complex.
But to simplify, as you have, surely the blame lies with corrupt African governments that line their own pockets with Western aid whilst their population die of disease and hunger? To 'save' Africa, the leadership needs to be strong, and it's main aim must be the well-being and protection of it's citizens.
GM foods will not save Africa and Greenpeace is not in any way responsible for the death of Africans from starvation for opposing GM research.
MacCoaster
Oct 12, 06:23 PM
ddtlm:
Thanks. I do know gcc a bit, but I really need complete instructions...
i.e. What to do with the .asm. What to do with the .c. What to do with them both to finally bind those. The linker ld? The only time I've ever used ld was in my little OS development... it's been months since I've touched that.
Thanks. I do know gcc a bit, but I really need complete instructions...
i.e. What to do with the .asm. What to do with the .c. What to do with them both to finally bind those. The linker ld? The only time I've ever used ld was in my little OS development... it's been months since I've touched that.
Danksi
Jul 12, 12:52 AM
I've never used any of the PCI slots on my PowerMacs and don't expect that I ever will, but the ability to put any video card in is appealing. The iMac is nice and quite useful, but just slightly less than what is needed in many cases. The PowerMac has been more or less uncompromising speed and generally more than I wanted when I bought. With all of the emphasis on the name 'Mac' in the new naming scheme and a more competitive landscape now that we've gone Intel, I think (hope) this is the machine Apple will use to complete its desktop lineup.
The Apple Mac... Nice sound to it, no?
I like the idea of a cut down Mac Pro, but perhaps something with at least one PCI slot, or even an Expresscard as used on the MBPro. Useful expansion, so long as it is all user-servicable.
The Apple Mac... Nice sound to it, no?
I like the idea of a cut down Mac Pro, but perhaps something with at least one PCI slot, or even an Expresscard as used on the MBPro. Useful expansion, so long as it is all user-servicable.
roland.g
Sep 12, 04:46 PM
who thinks it will be 802.11g or will it be 802.11n?
will that mean that all new macs Q1 07 also come with 802.11n as well?
or will the streaming from a 802.11g mac to the iTV just be crap?
if that's the case what will everyone with a current mac do, dongle it?
Steve should have been more explicit about the 802.11 or at least assured us that 802.11g macs will stream to it just fine.
Does anyone know if 802.11g can handle streaming video at that resolution?
will that mean that all new macs Q1 07 also come with 802.11n as well?
or will the streaming from a 802.11g mac to the iTV just be crap?
if that's the case what will everyone with a current mac do, dongle it?
Steve should have been more explicit about the 802.11 or at least assured us that 802.11g macs will stream to it just fine.
Does anyone know if 802.11g can handle streaming video at that resolution?
likemyorbs
Mar 26, 12:17 AM
Matthew 5:10-12
Irrelevant. Don't throw bible verses at us, it's not helping your point, but i can understand that you're using it as a last ditch effort because you realize you have no point.
PS
Matthew can go F himself. Your religion has no place in our laws, we do not live in a christian nation. Get over it.
Irrelevant. Don't throw bible verses at us, it's not helping your point, but i can understand that you're using it as a last ditch effort because you realize you have no point.
PS
Matthew can go F himself. Your religion has no place in our laws, we do not live in a christian nation. Get over it.
Sydde
Mar 15, 06:25 AM
I've largely given up on these threads and arguing about my field with people outside my field, but my god awmazz you need to just stop posting altogether...you haven't once had a clue what you are talking about. Sorry, but it's the truth.
All the fission stopped almost 72 hours ago.
Curious. You are suggesting that the control rods are fully seated (we would hope), absorbing the entire natural neutron flux, thus completely dampening the fission process (apart from the normal spontaneous fission of the 235 in the fuel pellets). Yet, the cores are still producing significant heat, sea water is being pumped over them to cool them, a real danger appears to exist. Where is that heat coming from, why, if the fission process has been choked off, are they not simply losing heat (cooling down like a big hunk of metal)? What are we missing?
All the fission stopped almost 72 hours ago.
Curious. You are suggesting that the control rods are fully seated (we would hope), absorbing the entire natural neutron flux, thus completely dampening the fission process (apart from the normal spontaneous fission of the 235 in the fuel pellets). Yet, the cores are still producing significant heat, sea water is being pumped over them to cool them, a real danger appears to exist. Where is that heat coming from, why, if the fission process has been choked off, are they not simply losing heat (cooling down like a big hunk of metal)? What are we missing?
840quadra
Apr 28, 08:37 AM
Yes. A very common sight even in 2011.
I am one of the many people carrying them, but, sales numbers of those versus the iPod Touch, and iPhone are telling us that the fad is over. ;)
I don't want them to stop selling classic iPods, however I am not blind to the fact that I am a member of a dying breed of classic iPod users. :(
I am one of the many people carrying them, but, sales numbers of those versus the iPod Touch, and iPhone are telling us that the fad is over. ;)
I don't want them to stop selling classic iPods, however I am not blind to the fact that I am a member of a dying breed of classic iPod users. :(
ffakr
Oct 6, 12:00 AM
I must love punishment because I scanned this whole tread. We need some sort system to gather the correct info into one location. :-)
Multimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.
I work at a wealthy research university, I set up a new mac every week (and too many PCs). A 1st Gen dual 2.0 G5 is plenty fast for nearly all users. I'm still surprised how nice ours runs considering it's 3 years old. In my experience the dual cores are more responsive (UI latency) but a slightly faster dual proc will run intensive tasks faster.
The reality is, a dual core system.. any current dual core system.. is a fantastic machine for 95% of computer users. The Core2 Duo (Merom) iMacs are extermely fast. The 24" iMac with 2GB ram runs nearly everything instantaneously.
The dual dual-core systems are rediculously fast. Iv'e set up several 2.66GHz models and I had to invent tasks to slow the thing down. Ripping DVD to h264 does take some time with handbrake (half playback speed ((that's ripping 1hour of DVD in 30 minutes) but the machine is still very responsive while you're doing that, installing software, and having Mathematica calculate Pi to 100,000 places. During normal use (Office, web, mail, chats...) it's unusual to see any of the cpu cores bump up past 20%.
I'm sure Apple will have 4 core cpus eventually but I don't expect it will happen immediately. Maybe they'll have one top end version but it'd certainly be a mistake to move the line to all quad cores.
Here's the reality...
- fewer cores running faster will be much better for most people
- there are relatively few tasks that really lend themselves to massively parallelizaton well. Video and Image editing are obvious because there are a number of ways to slice jobs up (render multiple frames.. break images into sections, modify in parallel, reassemble...).
- though multimedia is an Apple core market.. not everyone runs a full video shop or rending farm off of one desktop computer. Seriously guys, we don't.
- Games are especially difficult to thread for SMP systems. Even games that do support SMP like Quake and UT do it fairly poorly. UT only splits off audio work on to the 2nd cpu. The real time nature of games means you can't have 7 or 8 independent threads on an 8 core systems without running into issues were the game hangs up on a lagging thread. They simply work better in a more serial paradigm.
- The first quad core chips will be much hotter than current Core2 chips. Most people.. even people who want the power of towers.. don't want a desktop machine that actually pulls 600W from the wall because of the two 120-130W cpus inside. also, goodby silent MacPros in this config.
- The systems will be far too I/O bound in an 8 core system. The memory system does have lots of bandwith but the benchmarks indicate it will be bus and memory constrained. It'll certainly be hard to feed data from the SATA drives unless you've got gobs of memory and your not working on large streams of data (like video).
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/10/four_cores_on_the_rampage/
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.
I see some options here..
Maybe we'll get the dual 2.66 quad cores in one high end system. The price will go up.
Alternately.. this could finally be a rumored Mac Station.. or.. Apple has yet to announce a cluster node version of the intel XServe.
Geez.. almost forgot.
For most people... the Core2 desktop systems bench better than the 4core systems or even the dual Core2 Xeon systems because the DDR2 is lower latency than the FBDIMMs. To all the gamers.. you don't want slower clocked quad core chips.. not even on the desktop. You want a speed bump of the Core2 Duo.
Multimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.
I work at a wealthy research university, I set up a new mac every week (and too many PCs). A 1st Gen dual 2.0 G5 is plenty fast for nearly all users. I'm still surprised how nice ours runs considering it's 3 years old. In my experience the dual cores are more responsive (UI latency) but a slightly faster dual proc will run intensive tasks faster.
The reality is, a dual core system.. any current dual core system.. is a fantastic machine for 95% of computer users. The Core2 Duo (Merom) iMacs are extermely fast. The 24" iMac with 2GB ram runs nearly everything instantaneously.
The dual dual-core systems are rediculously fast. Iv'e set up several 2.66GHz models and I had to invent tasks to slow the thing down. Ripping DVD to h264 does take some time with handbrake (half playback speed ((that's ripping 1hour of DVD in 30 minutes) but the machine is still very responsive while you're doing that, installing software, and having Mathematica calculate Pi to 100,000 places. During normal use (Office, web, mail, chats...) it's unusual to see any of the cpu cores bump up past 20%.
I'm sure Apple will have 4 core cpus eventually but I don't expect it will happen immediately. Maybe they'll have one top end version but it'd certainly be a mistake to move the line to all quad cores.
Here's the reality...
- fewer cores running faster will be much better for most people
- there are relatively few tasks that really lend themselves to massively parallelizaton well. Video and Image editing are obvious because there are a number of ways to slice jobs up (render multiple frames.. break images into sections, modify in parallel, reassemble...).
- though multimedia is an Apple core market.. not everyone runs a full video shop or rending farm off of one desktop computer. Seriously guys, we don't.
- Games are especially difficult to thread for SMP systems. Even games that do support SMP like Quake and UT do it fairly poorly. UT only splits off audio work on to the 2nd cpu. The real time nature of games means you can't have 7 or 8 independent threads on an 8 core systems without running into issues were the game hangs up on a lagging thread. They simply work better in a more serial paradigm.
- The first quad core chips will be much hotter than current Core2 chips. Most people.. even people who want the power of towers.. don't want a desktop machine that actually pulls 600W from the wall because of the two 120-130W cpus inside. also, goodby silent MacPros in this config.
- The systems will be far too I/O bound in an 8 core system. The memory system does have lots of bandwith but the benchmarks indicate it will be bus and memory constrained. It'll certainly be hard to feed data from the SATA drives unless you've got gobs of memory and your not working on large streams of data (like video).
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/10/four_cores_on_the_rampage/
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.
I see some options here..
Maybe we'll get the dual 2.66 quad cores in one high end system. The price will go up.
Alternately.. this could finally be a rumored Mac Station.. or.. Apple has yet to announce a cluster node version of the intel XServe.
Geez.. almost forgot.
For most people... the Core2 desktop systems bench better than the 4core systems or even the dual Core2 Xeon systems because the DDR2 is lower latency than the FBDIMMs. To all the gamers.. you don't want slower clocked quad core chips.. not even on the desktop. You want a speed bump of the Core2 Duo.
fpnc
Mar 18, 06:10 PM
Okay, here are a few relevant portions from the iTunes Music Store Terms Of Service (TOS).
Security. You understand that the Service, and products purchased through the Service, such as sound recordings and related artwork (�Products�), include a security framework using technology that protects digital information and limits your usage of Products to certain usage rules established by Apple and its licensors (�Usage Rules�). You agree to comply with such Usage Rules, as further outlined below, and you agree not to violate or attempt to violate any security components. You agree not to attempt to, or assist another person to, circumvent, reverse-engineer, decompile, disassemble, or otherwise tamper with any of the security components related to such Usage Rules for any reason whatsoever. Usage Rules may be controlled and monitored by Apple for compliance purposes, and Apple reserves the right to enforce the Usage Rules with or without notice to you. You will not access the Service by any means other than through software that is provided by Apple for accessing the Service. You shall not access or attempt to access an Account that you are not authorized to access. You agree not to modify the software in any manner or form, or to use modified versions of the software, for any purposes including obtaining unauthorized access to the Service. Violations of system or network security may result in civil or criminal liability.
and
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.
So, basically if you use PyMusique you are in violation of the TOS and because you need an iTunes account to even make use of PyMusique, Apple will know who is trying to violate the TOS.
Thus, as I said before, you'd have to be pretty stupid to even try and use this software.
Security. You understand that the Service, and products purchased through the Service, such as sound recordings and related artwork (�Products�), include a security framework using technology that protects digital information and limits your usage of Products to certain usage rules established by Apple and its licensors (�Usage Rules�). You agree to comply with such Usage Rules, as further outlined below, and you agree not to violate or attempt to violate any security components. You agree not to attempt to, or assist another person to, circumvent, reverse-engineer, decompile, disassemble, or otherwise tamper with any of the security components related to such Usage Rules for any reason whatsoever. Usage Rules may be controlled and monitored by Apple for compliance purposes, and Apple reserves the right to enforce the Usage Rules with or without notice to you. You will not access the Service by any means other than through software that is provided by Apple for accessing the Service. You shall not access or attempt to access an Account that you are not authorized to access. You agree not to modify the software in any manner or form, or to use modified versions of the software, for any purposes including obtaining unauthorized access to the Service. Violations of system or network security may result in civil or criminal liability.
and
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.
So, basically if you use PyMusique you are in violation of the TOS and because you need an iTunes account to even make use of PyMusique, Apple will know who is trying to violate the TOS.
Thus, as I said before, you'd have to be pretty stupid to even try and use this software.
peharri
Sep 24, 05:08 PM
The iTV most definitely requires a computer.
There's no evidence of this. Nothing has been said suggesting anything of the sort.
The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video.
No, it isn't. It's not remotely like an Airport Extreme.
It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV.
This is not the case. There's only been one demonstration so far, and the controlling part was the iTV, not the server.
The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
What was demonstrated was a box that can view iTunes libraries on the local network. There's no evidence it "controls" the source machine beyond telling it to send a stream (like any iTunes client.)
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
The reported and demo'd features are of a standalone box that can access iTunes libraries. The box is reported to have storage (which is what this entire thread is about!)
It most certainly is not of some souped up Airport Extreme. That was what was widely rumoured before the Showtime presentation, and it turned out to be completely false. Whatever the debate of the precise capabilities of the iTV may be, the device demo'd couldn't be further from being an Airport Extreme if it tried.
There's no evidence of this. Nothing has been said suggesting anything of the sort.
The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video.
No, it isn't. It's not remotely like an Airport Extreme.
It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV.
This is not the case. There's only been one demonstration so far, and the controlling part was the iTV, not the server.
The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
What was demonstrated was a box that can view iTunes libraries on the local network. There's no evidence it "controls" the source machine beyond telling it to send a stream (like any iTunes client.)
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
The reported and demo'd features are of a standalone box that can access iTunes libraries. The box is reported to have storage (which is what this entire thread is about!)
It most certainly is not of some souped up Airport Extreme. That was what was widely rumoured before the Showtime presentation, and it turned out to be completely false. Whatever the debate of the precise capabilities of the iTV may be, the device demo'd couldn't be further from being an Airport Extreme if it tried.
rdstoll
May 5, 12:49 PM
AT&T should be embarrassed. Seriously, I had Sprint PCS in the late 90's that had much better call performance than AT&T does today. Having been with Verizon prior to switching to AT&T to get the iPhone I used to think the device was the problem but it's clear it's AT&T.
Worst part is that I got an email from AT&T just last week saying they just "completed a major upgrade" in Chicago. I'm still getting dropped calls left and right and 3G isn't that great either. And this is AFTER the upgrade??
Worst part is that I got an email from AT&T just last week saying they just "completed a major upgrade" in Chicago. I'm still getting dropped calls left and right and 3G isn't that great either. And this is AFTER the upgrade??
Thunderhawks
Apr 21, 09:09 AM
Originally Posted by MH01 View Post
You must live in a alternate univerise if think that Apple users are tech savy. You average user is very happy to have Apple control thier experience, ie they are techtards. And frankly owning an Apple product is the best thing for them, with a PC etc they will just get themselves into trouble.
If your still under some illusion of how tech savy they are read through the macrumors forums...... and remeber they are the more tech savy ones!
I have moved every family member over to mac who has no idea about computer, they are happy. The people I know who work in IT, develop and are really tech savy, still have a PC (and an android, some have both android and iphone)
Oh yes, being elitist by proclaiming to be tech savvy.
For starters the correct way to look at it is that Apple users don't HAVE to be tech savvy.
It all works beautifully the way Apple created it, with almost no learning curve. Unpack your device from the box, hook it up and watch the magic unfold.
I also don't see that I need a badge of being tech savvy. It's like me driving my car and not caring or needing to know how things work.
Do I care about compression, valves, spark plug, clutch etc. ?
I am also sure that there are an equal amount of dumb PC users as there are Apple users.
Only thing we don't know is if the question:
"My cup holder doesn't give my cup back"
(She was talking about a CD drive tray being jammed)
was from an Apple or PC user first:-)
You must live in a alternate univerise if think that Apple users are tech savy. You average user is very happy to have Apple control thier experience, ie they are techtards. And frankly owning an Apple product is the best thing for them, with a PC etc they will just get themselves into trouble.
If your still under some illusion of how tech savy they are read through the macrumors forums...... and remeber they are the more tech savy ones!
I have moved every family member over to mac who has no idea about computer, they are happy. The people I know who work in IT, develop and are really tech savy, still have a PC (and an android, some have both android and iphone)
Oh yes, being elitist by proclaiming to be tech savvy.
For starters the correct way to look at it is that Apple users don't HAVE to be tech savvy.
It all works beautifully the way Apple created it, with almost no learning curve. Unpack your device from the box, hook it up and watch the magic unfold.
I also don't see that I need a badge of being tech savvy. It's like me driving my car and not caring or needing to know how things work.
Do I care about compression, valves, spark plug, clutch etc. ?
I am also sure that there are an equal amount of dumb PC users as there are Apple users.
Only thing we don't know is if the question:
"My cup holder doesn't give my cup back"
(She was talking about a CD drive tray being jammed)
was from an Apple or PC user first:-)
fatphone4
Jun 27, 10:50 AM
I was on sprint for 10 years, dropped 6 to 7 calls a day. I switched one of my 8 phones into AT&T (iphone) to test it out. I did not drop a single call for 3 weeks. So I cancelled all my sprint lines and switched to AT&T, been on AT&T for 8 months maybe 6 dropped calls since. Much better service IMO
myamid
Sep 12, 06:30 PM
I may be wrong but it has "composite out" not "component"
No really, it has composite, S-Video & Component out... I swear :)
No really, it has composite, S-Video & Component out... I swear :)
portishead
Apr 12, 10:56 PM
My take: I think what I want from Final Cut Pro is to be a GREAT Editing application first. Color correction, titles, capture, output etc. is nice, but it is an editing app, and should first and foremost excel at that.
I think with FCPX this is a step in that direction. I don't expect it to be perfect, and fully mature yet, but with a few releases I believe it can get there.
A lot of people are asking where are the other apps. It's obvious these haven't been re-written yet. I'm guessing Apple will re-work these in the future also.
For now, I think (hope) FCPX will be the start of a really great editing application. I will reserve my opinion until I get to use it in action though.
I think with FCPX this is a step in that direction. I don't expect it to be perfect, and fully mature yet, but with a few releases I believe it can get there.
A lot of people are asking where are the other apps. It's obvious these haven't been re-written yet. I'm guessing Apple will re-work these in the future also.
For now, I think (hope) FCPX will be the start of a really great editing application. I will reserve my opinion until I get to use it in action though.
coal
Sep 20, 12:42 AM
So this can play any video file in iTunes then? Great, that's what I was waiting to hear. For some reason I convinved myself that Apple would only permit videos tagged as originating from their store. I know it sounds ridiculous, but as media companies keep pushing for control over content, it seemed inevitable that such restrictions would be enforced (particularly since Tivo Series 3 is such a closed system).
Also, hard drive? Wow.
Also, hard drive? Wow.
samdweck
Oct 7, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by arn
Sam... you need to chill.
Personal attacks and pure emotional posts are not very helpful. The point of this site is not to be Pro-Mac at all costs.
A fast enough Pentium will beat a 1.25GHz G4. How fast the Pentium has to be appears to be a point of contention... but that's all it is... as long as people keep it civil... it's cool.
Besides, alex_ant's post was a joke. Slow down, and read the intent of the posts.
arn
sorry arn, but it pisses me off! i mean really, i am very pro-mac and i should chill, but what does a pc person have business doing here... sorry though!
Sam... you need to chill.
Personal attacks and pure emotional posts are not very helpful. The point of this site is not to be Pro-Mac at all costs.
A fast enough Pentium will beat a 1.25GHz G4. How fast the Pentium has to be appears to be a point of contention... but that's all it is... as long as people keep it civil... it's cool.
Besides, alex_ant's post was a joke. Slow down, and read the intent of the posts.
arn
sorry arn, but it pisses me off! i mean really, i am very pro-mac and i should chill, but what does a pc person have business doing here... sorry though!