Unspeaked
Nov 29, 12:10 PM
I'm certainly not on the record label's side on this, and I'm someone who almost never downloads anything online (not even free, MP3 of the week type tracks), but I think two important things we're glossing over are:
1 It is illegal to pirate music, regardless of whether or not a label gives their artists their fair share of profits.
2 Like it or not, most of the music on most people's portable music players is downloaded off of P2P. We "affluent" Mac users, who stay on the cutting edge of technology and come to places like MacRumors for heated exchanges about Apple news are not a typical cross section of music consumers.
I'd reckon most iPods are owned by the under 21 crowd, who've grown up with P2P as an ever-present option for music, and who swap songs with friends without thinking twice about it.
And as this generation gets older, things will only get worse for the labels, I figure.
On the other hand, at some point in time, this same generation will be in our courtrooms running the judicial system and in our capitol running our government, so it could be that some of these antiquated laws get modified for the digital age, but until then, refer back to Points 1 and 2 above and realize that despite how we may feel about the issue, it's illegal to download music freely and most people are doing it...
1 It is illegal to pirate music, regardless of whether or not a label gives their artists their fair share of profits.
2 Like it or not, most of the music on most people's portable music players is downloaded off of P2P. We "affluent" Mac users, who stay on the cutting edge of technology and come to places like MacRumors for heated exchanges about Apple news are not a typical cross section of music consumers.
I'd reckon most iPods are owned by the under 21 crowd, who've grown up with P2P as an ever-present option for music, and who swap songs with friends without thinking twice about it.
And as this generation gets older, things will only get worse for the labels, I figure.
On the other hand, at some point in time, this same generation will be in our courtrooms running the judicial system and in our capitol running our government, so it could be that some of these antiquated laws get modified for the digital age, but until then, refer back to Points 1 and 2 above and realize that despite how we may feel about the issue, it's illegal to download music freely and most people are doing it...
leekohler
Apr 27, 10:35 AM
Oh for fraks sake (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/obamas-long-form-birth-certificate-released/?hp)
On one hand I think releasing the full certificate should not have happened as the dumb ass in the quote above is trying to take credit for forcing the release and only stupid, crazy, and racist people were asking birther questions. And now they all look sane and can claim sanity.
But, now that this long form certificate is out the President can say "Here is what you wanted and now can we move on with business" and if the birthers still question the certificate the President can show, point and claim that it was settled long ago.
The birthers won't be satisfied. They're mentally ill people who believe what they believe and no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise.
On one hand I think releasing the full certificate should not have happened as the dumb ass in the quote above is trying to take credit for forcing the release and only stupid, crazy, and racist people were asking birther questions. And now they all look sane and can claim sanity.
But, now that this long form certificate is out the President can say "Here is what you wanted and now can we move on with business" and if the birthers still question the certificate the President can show, point and claim that it was settled long ago.
The birthers won't be satisfied. They're mentally ill people who believe what they believe and no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise.
iGary
Aug 5, 05:15 PM
iMac - No.
iPod - No.
MacBook - No.
MacBook Pro - No.
MacPro - Yes.
Xserve - Yes.
Displays - Yes.
Leopard Preview - Yes.
iPhone - Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
iPod - No.
MacBook - No.
MacBook Pro - No.
MacPro - Yes.
Xserve - Yes.
Displays - Yes.
Leopard Preview - Yes.
iPhone - Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
ezekielrage_99
Sep 18, 11:27 PM
Is it happening on a tuesday, perchance? :D
G5 PowerBooks next tuesday :confused:
:D
G5 PowerBooks next tuesday :confused:
:D
fivepoint
Mar 22, 06:48 AM
The hypocrisy coming from the left in the media on this issue is palpable... all the talk about Obama's great coalition and how its a justifiable war. Here are a few of my favorite quotes from Brhawk Obama:
�I�m gonna read this and then tell you who said it. �The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.� Now that was Barack Obama who said that on December the 20, 2007. We�ve got to be very sure here that we follow the Constitution, and president Obama didn�t do that.�
�Well, look, if that�s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now � where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife � which we haven�t done,�
Oh yeah... and here's a fun little nugget for those who like to tout Obama's coalition:
[Source: US State Department]
Coalition Countries - Iraq - 2003
Afghanistan,
Albania
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Hungary
Italy
Japan
South Korea
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
Uzbekistan
Coalition - Libya - 2011
United States
France
United Kingdom
Italy
Canada
Belgium
Denmark
Norway
Qatar
Spain
Greece
Germany
Poland
Jordan
Morocco
United Arab Emirate
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2011/03/21/fact-bush-had-2-times-more-coalition-partners-iraq-obama-has-libya#ixzz1HKPFLjvX
�I�m gonna read this and then tell you who said it. �The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.� Now that was Barack Obama who said that on December the 20, 2007. We�ve got to be very sure here that we follow the Constitution, and president Obama didn�t do that.�
�Well, look, if that�s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now � where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife � which we haven�t done,�
Oh yeah... and here's a fun little nugget for those who like to tout Obama's coalition:
[Source: US State Department]
Coalition Countries - Iraq - 2003
Afghanistan,
Albania
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Hungary
Italy
Japan
South Korea
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
Uzbekistan
Coalition - Libya - 2011
United States
France
United Kingdom
Italy
Canada
Belgium
Denmark
Norway
Qatar
Spain
Greece
Germany
Poland
Jordan
Morocco
United Arab Emirate
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2011/03/21/fact-bush-had-2-times-more-coalition-partners-iraq-obama-has-libya#ixzz1HKPFLjvX
Malligator
Mar 31, 04:27 PM
what is this bash apple competitors day?
What is this, "let's go on an Apple fansite and act surpised that it's full of Apple fans" day?
What is this, "let's go on an Apple fansite and act surpised that it's full of Apple fans" day?
cr2sh
Jul 14, 06:11 PM
The thing I like least about this rumor is that it specifies only a 320GB harddrive.
The current configs (quad g5) were released in October of last year, in that time harddrive capacities have increased well beyond that (320) small number.
The new machines will get 500GB drives I have to believe.
:confused:
The current configs (quad g5) were released in October of last year, in that time harddrive capacities have increased well beyond that (320) small number.
The new machines will get 500GB drives I have to believe.
:confused:
BlizzardBomb
Sep 19, 01:23 AM
1.83 GHz and 2 GHz Core 2 Duos for the MacBook, 2.16 GHz and 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duos for the MacBook Pro. Simple. And an MR X1800 (XT?)/ Go 7800 (GTX?) for the MacBook Pro!
cecildk9999
Nov 28, 07:30 PM
I agree with pretty much everyone else here; this royalty notion won't fly with Apple being (for once) in the dominant market position. If Universal pulls their music/content, it'll all be downloaded illegally, since the Zune isn't about to replace the iPod as the must-have 'cool' item (even if Zune marketplace does offer the Universal catalog). Universal just wants Apple to throw them a bone.
backdraft
Jul 29, 05:57 PM
well I'd rather see a ppc update...
gugy
Aug 11, 11:06 AM
Paris would be an excellent opportunity to introduce the "iPhone".
Probably, But I think Christmass season would be better for sales. maybe they will launch end of October to take advantage of that.
I just hope it's true, I am so tired of my Verizon service and their crap phones.
Probably, But I think Christmass season would be better for sales. maybe they will launch end of October to take advantage of that.
I just hope it's true, I am so tired of my Verizon service and their crap phones.
Macnoviz
Jul 20, 04:23 PM
Sort of proves the point i was trying to make, at some point mose users wil rather get a beter IO subsystem than more processing power.
Actually, that was my point, but now that you mention it, reversed hyperthreading would solve some problems.
In the long run (really long run, I'm talking quantumcomputers here) however, you are right, and innovation in computing will mostly come from software and how you tell the computer what to do. The nec-plus-ultra would be thinking of a result and getting it (or saying it to your computer) like a photoshop user going, well I would like the sun being more dominant in that picture, the power lines removed, and make those persons look younger. Boom. It happens.
Actually, that was my point, but now that you mention it, reversed hyperthreading would solve some problems.
In the long run (really long run, I'm talking quantumcomputers here) however, you are right, and innovation in computing will mostly come from software and how you tell the computer what to do. The nec-plus-ultra would be thinking of a result and getting it (or saying it to your computer) like a photoshop user going, well I would like the sun being more dominant in that picture, the power lines removed, and make those persons look younger. Boom. It happens.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
dsnort
Apr 6, 02:33 PM
..I'd rather drive a BMW, I guess you're all happy with the Hondas :)
Your BMW looks a lot like a Yugo to me.
I kid, I kid!
Your BMW looks a lot like a Yugo to me.
I kid, I kid!
cmaier
Apr 19, 02:35 PM
Yes. People here are failing to understand the difference between traditional patents that we usually hear about here, and design patents. I believe what Apple is suing over is infringed design patents.
7 utility patents and 3 design patents, plus 3 trade dress registrations and a bunch (7? i forget) trademark registrations, plus some unregistered state-law unfair competition/trademark stuff.
7 utility patents and 3 design patents, plus 3 trade dress registrations and a bunch (7? i forget) trademark registrations, plus some unregistered state-law unfair competition/trademark stuff.
acslater017
Mar 26, 05:15 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Wow. Be a little more open-minded! It's not as if Apple is taking away much with Lion. If you don't wanna use launchpad, it won't force you too. Grouping expose by apps is good for most things - it doesnt make sense for each Safari window to take up as much space as a separate program. Fullscreen is very useful for focusing on one task
Wow. Be a little more open-minded! It's not as if Apple is taking away much with Lion. If you don't wanna use launchpad, it won't force you too. Grouping expose by apps is good for most things - it doesnt make sense for each Safari window to take up as much space as a separate program. Fullscreen is very useful for focusing on one task
mkjellman
Aug 25, 02:52 PM
well, i've been on the phone with apple 13 times in the past month. other than very long hold times, which is unusual, my issues have been completely resolved each time to my complete satistaction. i don't know if people are upset at the 15+ minute hold times, but i think apple is still doing what they do best.
samcraig
Apr 27, 08:51 AM
Ok then show me where it says that turning location services off will not stop the tracking. I've scanned the articles and did not find anything that said that. If it does still track when you turn it off, I'd like to know.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704123204576283580249161342.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704123204576283580249161342.html
JFreak
Aug 8, 04:05 AM
Looks like this will be a significant upgrade. Tiger was not what it was promised to be, in my eyes at least, so now I'm thinking they have finally made it better than Panther.
Let's see...
Let's see...
spazzcat
Mar 22, 01:36 PM
Sorry, completely forgot about that.
iOS rocks in apps, but it does suck *** in terms of notifications and true multitasking.
Apple should've been the ones to buy Palm.
Apples multitasking is way better they anything out there. On these devices battery rules all...
iOS rocks in apps, but it does suck *** in terms of notifications and true multitasking.
Apple should've been the ones to buy Palm.
Apples multitasking is way better they anything out there. On these devices battery rules all...
bonehead
Nov 28, 07:02 PM
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Two things.
1) Who says the people who actually make the music would get any of this money in the first place?
2) Digital distribution is more profitable per unit than CDs. There are no manufacturing or shipping costs.
Now who is it that wants something for nothing?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Two things.
1) Who says the people who actually make the music would get any of this money in the first place?
2) Digital distribution is more profitable per unit than CDs. There are no manufacturing or shipping costs.
Now who is it that wants something for nothing?
nagromme
Mar 22, 01:01 PM
Widescreen is great for movie watching, and the spec-lover in me is all over that... but it’s not very flexible for portrait use. (Which is how you hold a tablet one-handed, and is how you see the most content on a web page or scrolling document.)
A 10.1” 1280x800 screen is actually almost exactly the same screen area as an iPad: the iPad is 45.2 sq. in., and the 10.1 is 45.8 sq. in.
Held in portrait mode, the 10.1 is .75” taller... but .5” narrower than an iPad. I don’t think I’d care for that. (But with 1280x800 you do gain 32 pixels of width, and 256 pixels of height. Still not great for portrait use.)
The 8.9 display, though—which seems to save a few bucks—is an interesting option for dropping the price floor on “real” tablets. (Not that I’d settle for Android’s failings. As pointed out: specs alone don’t make a good car, nor a good computer, nor a good tablet!)
I hope these catch on enough that I can actually buy an iPad.
Ha ha :D Good thinking!
A 10.1” 1280x800 screen is actually almost exactly the same screen area as an iPad: the iPad is 45.2 sq. in., and the 10.1 is 45.8 sq. in.
Held in portrait mode, the 10.1 is .75” taller... but .5” narrower than an iPad. I don’t think I’d care for that. (But with 1280x800 you do gain 32 pixels of width, and 256 pixels of height. Still not great for portrait use.)
The 8.9 display, though—which seems to save a few bucks—is an interesting option for dropping the price floor on “real” tablets. (Not that I’d settle for Android’s failings. As pointed out: specs alone don’t make a good car, nor a good computer, nor a good tablet!)
I hope these catch on enough that I can actually buy an iPad.
Ha ha :D Good thinking!
shadowfax
Jul 27, 04:13 PM
Well it's back to the future for all of us. Remember when the Mac was going 64-bit with the introduction of the G5 PowerMac on June 23, 2003? :rolleyes: Only more thanthree years later and we're doing it all over again thanks to Yonah's 7 month retrograde.
This may be a bit of a disappointment, but I think that Merom is still in the "past:" merom is not a 64-bit chip. None of these Core 2's are. They just have EM64T (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM64T), which allows them to address more than 4 GB of memory directly. These are not true 64-bit processors like the G5--that is, the Core 2 Duo won't work with 64-bit applications. The G5's Intel counterpart would, I think, bit the Itanium chip, based on intel's IA-64 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IA-64) Architecture, which is truly 64 bit in every way. Merom simply contains a 64-bit extension to the IA-32 (x86) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_architecture#64-bit) architecture, which I understand is still a 32-bit architecture. We're not out of the woods yet...
This may be a bit of a disappointment, but I think that Merom is still in the "past:" merom is not a 64-bit chip. None of these Core 2's are. They just have EM64T (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM64T), which allows them to address more than 4 GB of memory directly. These are not true 64-bit processors like the G5--that is, the Core 2 Duo won't work with 64-bit applications. The G5's Intel counterpart would, I think, bit the Itanium chip, based on intel's IA-64 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IA-64) Architecture, which is truly 64 bit in every way. Merom simply contains a 64-bit extension to the IA-32 (x86) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_architecture#64-bit) architecture, which I understand is still a 32-bit architecture. We're not out of the woods yet...
regandarcy
Apr 6, 10:56 AM
So are the current MacBook airs using a dedicated gpu? Or is it integrated? I'm confused. :-)