leshkanyc
Nov 10, 03:01 PM
Yes, i did! And it's a BIG difference vs ****** AT&T
Read about it here:
Why I dumped AT&T, sold my iPhone 4 and got Droid X with Verizon (http://www.webandblog.com/general/why-dumped-att-sold-my-iphone-4-and-got-myself-droid-x-on-verizon/)
Sell your iPhone 4, call AT&T and tell em they suck and get away with your number!
Read about it here:
Why I dumped AT&T, sold my iPhone 4 and got Droid X with Verizon (http://www.webandblog.com/general/why-dumped-att-sold-my-iphone-4-and-got-myself-droid-x-on-verizon/)
Sell your iPhone 4, call AT&T and tell em they suck and get away with your number!
Bill McEnaney
Apr 25, 12:24 AM
I don't think many atheists actually feel that a god absolutely does not exist. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god but most atheists, I believe, are agnostic in the actual existence. While lacking in a belief about a god, most would keep an open mind on the issue or would say it's impossible to know either way.
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's no God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's no God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
dragonsbane
Mar 20, 06:19 AM
It is not the law that made iTunes music incompatible with other MP3 players, it's the file format and DRM design. Further, Apple has done nothing illegal in its choices and implementation. There is therefore no legitimate reason to break the law--your rights are what you agreed to when purchasing the music and nothing more.
By that logic, women would still not be able to vote. Look at other societies that do not allow people to protest "unjust" laws. Compare where they stand to where we stand. I am simply trying to take us further still down the road of freedom for all humans. Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans is a Bad Thing�. DRM, by definition, falls into this category.
DRM does not, in theory, infringe on your license rights.
Again, I am bound by these laws but I do not need to AGREE with them. Do you agree with them? [That is a direct question btw.]
Your freedom of choice comes with certain sacrifices
All actions (free or not free) require sacrifices. So what is your point?
and restrictions, none of which have been imposed on you illegally or prohibit you from legal use of the product. The only reason to break the law here is for the purpose of breaking the law, not for any delusions of your rights to do as you wish with music.
Option A (Legal Participation): Buy the music and abide by the laws
Option B (Legal Non-Participation): Don't buy the music and not be subject to any laws
Option C (Something Different): Think for yourself and live life according to your own laws
I will take C cuz it allows for both A & B while reserving my ability to think for myself. Even if I end up the same place as you, the journey I took to get there will make all the difference.
By that logic, women would still not be able to vote. Look at other societies that do not allow people to protest "unjust" laws. Compare where they stand to where we stand. I am simply trying to take us further still down the road of freedom for all humans. Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans is a Bad Thing�. DRM, by definition, falls into this category.
DRM does not, in theory, infringe on your license rights.
Again, I am bound by these laws but I do not need to AGREE with them. Do you agree with them? [That is a direct question btw.]
Your freedom of choice comes with certain sacrifices
All actions (free or not free) require sacrifices. So what is your point?
and restrictions, none of which have been imposed on you illegally or prohibit you from legal use of the product. The only reason to break the law here is for the purpose of breaking the law, not for any delusions of your rights to do as you wish with music.
Option A (Legal Participation): Buy the music and abide by the laws
Option B (Legal Non-Participation): Don't buy the music and not be subject to any laws
Option C (Something Different): Think for yourself and live life according to your own laws
I will take C cuz it allows for both A & B while reserving my ability to think for myself. Even if I end up the same place as you, the journey I took to get there will make all the difference.
The Final Cut
Feb 28, 12:49 AM
Android to Surpass iPhone in Market Share by 2012?
That's the second insanely improbable hypothesis for that year:)
That's the second insanely improbable hypothesis for that year:)
Pants
Oct 9, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by gopher
[B]Spec fp is extremely biased because it assumes the case of zero error code. It doesn't measure raw performance like floating point calculations per second does. When errors occur in code, the Pentium grinds to a halt, sometimes even making the Pentium IV slower than the Pentium III that is a whole Ghz slower!
yes, but your assuming that
When RC5 and Genentech tests prove that raw performance the G4 is much faster than the Pentium IV or AMD, which it does, then it basically throws out the whole idea that Mhz matters. The G4 is 4 to 5 times faster.
As for hand optimizing code, you don't have to do it. What you do have to do is write developers of your software if you are displeased with how poorly they optimize code, or go seek better written software. That's why people who do video prefer Final Cut Pro over Adobe Premier in many cases.
what when the altivec unit gets starved of data?
Im talking from a 'doing' point of view - when a machine i have spent 2.5k wont allow me to use its best feature (with gcc) then i feel cheated.
[B]Spec fp is extremely biased because it assumes the case of zero error code. It doesn't measure raw performance like floating point calculations per second does. When errors occur in code, the Pentium grinds to a halt, sometimes even making the Pentium IV slower than the Pentium III that is a whole Ghz slower!
yes, but your assuming that
When RC5 and Genentech tests prove that raw performance the G4 is much faster than the Pentium IV or AMD, which it does, then it basically throws out the whole idea that Mhz matters. The G4 is 4 to 5 times faster.
As for hand optimizing code, you don't have to do it. What you do have to do is write developers of your software if you are displeased with how poorly they optimize code, or go seek better written software. That's why people who do video prefer Final Cut Pro over Adobe Premier in many cases.
what when the altivec unit gets starved of data?
Im talking from a 'doing' point of view - when a machine i have spent 2.5k wont allow me to use its best feature (with gcc) then i feel cheated.
twoodcc
Sep 26, 01:36 PM
well i might be getting a mac pro soon (not sure yet)
but if i do, my question is when will we see an 8-core mac pro?
but if i do, my question is when will we see an 8-core mac pro?
Jcoz
Mar 18, 11:55 AM
I hate how these carriers work in the US.
If you give us a data allowance, that is what you give us - regardless of how we use it.
If you were giving us unlimited data, then I could understand why you would be charging for tethering. But that would go bad anyways.
I agree.
I completely understand the idea that unlimited data should have to pay for tethering, although I think there should just be a cap prior to additional charges like verizon does.
What I dont understand is how they think charging tiered data customers for tethering is fair.
If you give us a data allowance, that is what you give us - regardless of how we use it.
If you were giving us unlimited data, then I could understand why you would be charging for tethering. But that would go bad anyways.
I agree.
I completely understand the idea that unlimited data should have to pay for tethering, although I think there should just be a cap prior to additional charges like verizon does.
What I dont understand is how they think charging tiered data customers for tethering is fair.
LumbermanSVO
Mar 26, 09:45 PM
Situation would never happen, police don't walk the beat here anymore (thought it would be nice). Also police are obligated to stop crimes in action while the government isn't obligated to create new rights because a very small demographic demands it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kris_Kime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kris_Kime
benixau
Oct 12, 10:41 AM
for crying out load, who cares if a pc can do its sums better than a mac. My brother does maths better than me but i kick him in english.
In other words if i am more productive on my mac then it doesnt matter that it might be a little 'slower' it is a faster machine because i can work faster. End of story. New Thread.
In other words if i am more productive on my mac then it doesnt matter that it might be a little 'slower' it is a faster machine because i can work faster. End of story. New Thread.
Cabbit
Apr 15, 12:43 PM
Just to note there is gay behaviour in the animal kingdom, my two male cats went at it in there puberty and it is well documented in other animals. It is perfectly natural and before the time of the christian gods creation gay behaviour was tolerated in Rome though lesbian behaviour was not.
And marriage is legal in many parts of Europe between same sex couples, it is only the 3rd world and developing world that has the biggest issue with same sex marriage but as these countries always traditionally follow Europe expect the decline of religion as more and more people become educated, and with the decline of religion such nonsense as hating each over whom we love to also fade away.
And marriage is legal in many parts of Europe between same sex couples, it is only the 3rd world and developing world that has the biggest issue with same sex marriage but as these countries always traditionally follow Europe expect the decline of religion as more and more people become educated, and with the decline of religion such nonsense as hating each over whom we love to also fade away.
bobr1952
May 2, 11:40 AM
I turned off automatically open safe files years ago in Tiger and have migrated that setting over since.
I too turned this feature off a long time ago--but still--this seems like a feature Apple needs to get rid of in Safari--not all that useful and potentially dangerous to unsuspecting users.
I too turned this feature off a long time ago--but still--this seems like a feature Apple needs to get rid of in Safari--not all that useful and potentially dangerous to unsuspecting users.
firestarter
Mar 13, 10:01 AM
i recommend thinking about what the results might have been if the earthquake hadn't been dozens of miles away, but in closer proximity (even at a lower magnitude)
and emergency cooling systems not working on 6 reactors and 2 meltdowns are now considered "stood up well" ? those reactors just had saftey improvements/reworks done last year
Well, this is still playing out. If they avoid a containment breech, then they'll have stood up as well as needs-be.
Safety has to be designed in to reactors from the ground up. 40 year old technology is 40 year old technology - no matter what tweaks you do at a later date.
Pontificating about the fate of nuclear power stations on seismic fault lines isn't any sort of argument against using them in Western Europe or in much of the USA.
uranian isn't limited: with current nuclear plants and those in construction the point of running out of easy usable uraniam for nuclear electricity is perhaps 30 years away
economical that point might be reached faster since uranium mining will become more and more expensive with oil/fuel becoming more expensive
Figures I'm reading say we have 80 years of identified deposits with more to be discovered.
Main sources countries are politically pretty stable (more so than the Middle East!)
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html
Australia 31%
Kazakhstan 12%
Canada 9%
Russia 9%
Canada's supply is especially high quality.
that's why nuclear plants are actually worse than estimated in the past, in terms of energy produced in lifetime/ energy used during construction + operation. Vattenfall themselves actually found that out.
i'm no fan of the oil industry either but talking about how an other industry is 'just as bad as the oil industry', doesn't exactly help ;)
Why doesn't it help? Unless you're advocating massive depopulation, we have a growing requirement for energy, and by not choosing nuclear, you are choosing fossil fuel - whether you like it or not! My opinion is that the oil industry and it's political ramifications are much more damaging than nuclear!
Just watch as the Europe and the US supports the Saudi royal family in the oppression of their people over the next few months. Democratic government is fine in Egypt, but there's no way we'll support it in Saudi - we care about their oil too much!
the Three Gorges Dam is perhaps on the same scale of impact compared to Assuan or the one planned in brazil but i can easily ask: what is your opinion on the Hoover dam ?
The Hoover dam has a lower impact than the Three Gorges by a long shot.
Personally, I believe in a balanced approach to energy production, but with a diminishing reliance on fossil fuel. In that context both nuclear and renewable power expansion is essential.
The point I was making is that the environmental argument against nuclear and for renewable is bogus. All forms of power generation have negative environmental impact.
Here's an interesting paper by the eminent Green advocate James Lovelock:
Nuclear power is the only green solution (http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm)
and emergency cooling systems not working on 6 reactors and 2 meltdowns are now considered "stood up well" ? those reactors just had saftey improvements/reworks done last year
Well, this is still playing out. If they avoid a containment breech, then they'll have stood up as well as needs-be.
Safety has to be designed in to reactors from the ground up. 40 year old technology is 40 year old technology - no matter what tweaks you do at a later date.
Pontificating about the fate of nuclear power stations on seismic fault lines isn't any sort of argument against using them in Western Europe or in much of the USA.
uranian isn't limited: with current nuclear plants and those in construction the point of running out of easy usable uraniam for nuclear electricity is perhaps 30 years away
economical that point might be reached faster since uranium mining will become more and more expensive with oil/fuel becoming more expensive
Figures I'm reading say we have 80 years of identified deposits with more to be discovered.
Main sources countries are politically pretty stable (more so than the Middle East!)
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html
Australia 31%
Kazakhstan 12%
Canada 9%
Russia 9%
Canada's supply is especially high quality.
that's why nuclear plants are actually worse than estimated in the past, in terms of energy produced in lifetime/ energy used during construction + operation. Vattenfall themselves actually found that out.
i'm no fan of the oil industry either but talking about how an other industry is 'just as bad as the oil industry', doesn't exactly help ;)
Why doesn't it help? Unless you're advocating massive depopulation, we have a growing requirement for energy, and by not choosing nuclear, you are choosing fossil fuel - whether you like it or not! My opinion is that the oil industry and it's political ramifications are much more damaging than nuclear!
Just watch as the Europe and the US supports the Saudi royal family in the oppression of their people over the next few months. Democratic government is fine in Egypt, but there's no way we'll support it in Saudi - we care about their oil too much!
the Three Gorges Dam is perhaps on the same scale of impact compared to Assuan or the one planned in brazil but i can easily ask: what is your opinion on the Hoover dam ?
The Hoover dam has a lower impact than the Three Gorges by a long shot.
Personally, I believe in a balanced approach to energy production, but with a diminishing reliance on fossil fuel. In that context both nuclear and renewable power expansion is essential.
The point I was making is that the environmental argument against nuclear and for renewable is bogus. All forms of power generation have negative environmental impact.
Here's an interesting paper by the eminent Green advocate James Lovelock:
Nuclear power is the only green solution (http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm)
Icaras
Apr 9, 12:43 AM
That's a complete joke, surely? There's no way you can compare console gaming, in basically a home arcade, to swiping your fingers around on a 3.5" screen. No way. I am a gamer, and always will be.
Gaming on the iPhone is good for 2-minute bursts, such as when sitting on the toilet. It's not a great games device. Most of the games are cheap with no replay value.
Say that about games like Final Fantasy III, Aralon, or even NOVA 2. Try finishing any of these games while on one sitting at the toilet. :eek:
You're right about prematurely comparing iOS to console gaming though. However, I feel iOS absolutely competes with handheld devices by Sony and Nintendo.
I feel the quality is there for many games and growing. I think it would be foolish to dismiss gaming on iOS when there is obvious growth and a healthy consumer market happening at the App Store.
Gaming on the iPhone is good for 2-minute bursts, such as when sitting on the toilet. It's not a great games device. Most of the games are cheap with no replay value.
Say that about games like Final Fantasy III, Aralon, or even NOVA 2. Try finishing any of these games while on one sitting at the toilet. :eek:
You're right about prematurely comparing iOS to console gaming though. However, I feel iOS absolutely competes with handheld devices by Sony and Nintendo.
I feel the quality is there for many games and growing. I think it would be foolish to dismiss gaming on iOS when there is obvious growth and a healthy consumer market happening at the App Store.
Cutwolf
Mar 18, 01:35 PM
There are quite a lot of people in this thread who sound like AT&T employees trying to add to the scare tactics.
The cheapest and most efficient way for AT&T to "detect" tethering would be to monitor data usage and accuse high data users. They anticipate a lot of them will be uneducated and believe they have really been caught and switch to the official tethering plan (losing their unlimited, which I believe is AT&T ultimate goal here), or will simply ignore the text and they can automatically switch them, accomplishing the same thing.
If AT&T accuses you, and you refuse to switch to the new plan and claim you're not tethering, and they switch you anyway, you'd almost certainly be entitled to cancel with no ETF, legally at least. Particularly if they refused to do anything more than say "we suspect you are tethering" without providing any support.
To be fair, AT&T contract does say they can modify or terminate your account if the simply believe you are tethering, but no court would hold that belief, without a legitimate basis, is grounds for modification or termination, and it's hard to believe that 20 gb of data usage in a month would be a legitimate basis for that belief (those who are reaching ridiculous numbers like 50+ might be a different story.
My take (law student with no tech background): if they accuse you and send you the message, call them and play dumb and say you do a lot of streaming. If they buy it, great. If they end up switching you anyway, or forcing you to switch, you can presumably get out of the contract with no ETF. If this fails, and you have money to blow to prove a point, you can probably seek an injunction preventing AT&T from altering your contract, or a declaratory judgment that the contract permits you to get out of it without an ETF in this circumstance.
Odds are that AT&T would be unlikely to show up for any lawsuit filed by an individual over a few hundred bucks, which would entitle you to both the ETF and your legal fees.
Granted, I'm a student not yet a practitioner, so all of this should be taken with several grains of salt. Additionally, none of this should be construed to constitute legal advice.
The cheapest and most efficient way for AT&T to "detect" tethering would be to monitor data usage and accuse high data users. They anticipate a lot of them will be uneducated and believe they have really been caught and switch to the official tethering plan (losing their unlimited, which I believe is AT&T ultimate goal here), or will simply ignore the text and they can automatically switch them, accomplishing the same thing.
If AT&T accuses you, and you refuse to switch to the new plan and claim you're not tethering, and they switch you anyway, you'd almost certainly be entitled to cancel with no ETF, legally at least. Particularly if they refused to do anything more than say "we suspect you are tethering" without providing any support.
To be fair, AT&T contract does say they can modify or terminate your account if the simply believe you are tethering, but no court would hold that belief, without a legitimate basis, is grounds for modification or termination, and it's hard to believe that 20 gb of data usage in a month would be a legitimate basis for that belief (those who are reaching ridiculous numbers like 50+ might be a different story.
My take (law student with no tech background): if they accuse you and send you the message, call them and play dumb and say you do a lot of streaming. If they buy it, great. If they end up switching you anyway, or forcing you to switch, you can presumably get out of the contract with no ETF. If this fails, and you have money to blow to prove a point, you can probably seek an injunction preventing AT&T from altering your contract, or a declaratory judgment that the contract permits you to get out of it without an ETF in this circumstance.
Odds are that AT&T would be unlikely to show up for any lawsuit filed by an individual over a few hundred bucks, which would entitle you to both the ETF and your legal fees.
Granted, I'm a student not yet a practitioner, so all of this should be taken with several grains of salt. Additionally, none of this should be construed to constitute legal advice.
digitalbiker
Sep 12, 04:31 PM
I'd like nothing better than to be able to dump Comcast completely, but without the ability to watch live sports, it's a no-go. If they start streaming games for a couple bucks, I'd definitely take a look at it.
-- Any regular-season game from any sport = $1.99
-- Any playoff game from any sport = $2.99
-- NFL season pass (1 team, 16 games) = $30
Osama Bin Laden#39;s Death
Osama bin Laden: US newspaper
Osama bin Laden is seen at an
Osama bin Laden is dead but
Reacent Post
-- Any regular-season game from any sport = $1.99
-- Any playoff game from any sport = $2.99
-- NFL season pass (1 team, 16 games) = $30
reel2reel
Apr 13, 07:42 AM
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)
The whole "iMovie Pro" thing is so unimaginative and boring. My guess is the whiners are the ones who don't actually use FCP for anything other than YouTube noise anyway. In the real world, though, editors and filmmakers are very excited. FCP has been a stagnant bug-fest for too long.
The whole "iMovie Pro" thing is so unimaginative and boring. My guess is the whiners are the ones who don't actually use FCP for anything other than YouTube noise anyway. In the real world, though, editors and filmmakers are very excited. FCP has been a stagnant bug-fest for too long.
Gelfin
Apr 24, 03:03 PM
In answer to the OP's question, I have long harbored the suspicion (without any clear idea how to test it) that human beings have evolved their penchant for accepting nonsense. On the face of it, accepting that which does not correspond with reality is a very costly behavior. Animals that believe they need to sacrifice part of their food supply should be that much less likely to survive than those without that belief.
My hunch, however, is that the willingness to play along with certain kinds of nonsense games, including religion and other ritualized activities, is a social bonding mechanism in humans so deeply ingrained that it is difficult for us to step outside ourselves and recognize it for a game. One's willingness to play along with the rituals of a culture signifies that his need to be a part of the community is stronger than his need for rational justification. Consenting to accept a manufactured truth is an act of submission. It generates social cohesion and establishes shibboleths. In a way it is a constant background radiation of codependence and enablement permeating human existence.
If I go way too far out on this particular limb, I actually suspect that the ability to prioritize rational justification over social submission is a more recent development than we realize, and that this development is still competing with the old instincts for social cohesion. Perhaps this is the reason that atheists and skeptics are typically considered more objectionable than those with differing religious or supernatural beliefs. Playing the game under slightly different rules seems less dangerous than refusing to play at all.
Think of the undertones of the intuitive stereotype many people have of skeptics: many people automatically imagine a sort of bristly, unfriendly loner who isn't really happy and is always trying to make other people unhappy too. There is really no factual basis for this caricature, and yet it is almost universal. On this account, when we become adults we do not stop playing games of make-believe. Instead we just start taking our games of make-believe very seriously, and our intuitive sense is that someone who rejects our games is rejecting us. Such a person feels untrustworthy in a way we would find hard to justify.
Religions are hardly the only source of this sort of game. I suspect they are everywhere, often too subtle to notice, but religions are by far the largest, oldest, most obtrusive example.
My hunch, however, is that the willingness to play along with certain kinds of nonsense games, including religion and other ritualized activities, is a social bonding mechanism in humans so deeply ingrained that it is difficult for us to step outside ourselves and recognize it for a game. One's willingness to play along with the rituals of a culture signifies that his need to be a part of the community is stronger than his need for rational justification. Consenting to accept a manufactured truth is an act of submission. It generates social cohesion and establishes shibboleths. In a way it is a constant background radiation of codependence and enablement permeating human existence.
If I go way too far out on this particular limb, I actually suspect that the ability to prioritize rational justification over social submission is a more recent development than we realize, and that this development is still competing with the old instincts for social cohesion. Perhaps this is the reason that atheists and skeptics are typically considered more objectionable than those with differing religious or supernatural beliefs. Playing the game under slightly different rules seems less dangerous than refusing to play at all.
Think of the undertones of the intuitive stereotype many people have of skeptics: many people automatically imagine a sort of bristly, unfriendly loner who isn't really happy and is always trying to make other people unhappy too. There is really no factual basis for this caricature, and yet it is almost universal. On this account, when we become adults we do not stop playing games of make-believe. Instead we just start taking our games of make-believe very seriously, and our intuitive sense is that someone who rejects our games is rejecting us. Such a person feels untrustworthy in a way we would find hard to justify.
Religions are hardly the only source of this sort of game. I suspect they are everywhere, often too subtle to notice, but religions are by far the largest, oldest, most obtrusive example.
ShavenYak
Mar 18, 03:30 PM
I would bet you will find this hole in WMA stores for the same reason. Of course Jon prefers to target the source that will get him headlines.
From my limited knowledge of WMA from a miserable two days spent trying to help a friend's daughter with a crappy RCA player and Wal*Mart downloads, I think they may work differently. The license file is separate from the actual WMA file, so I'm betting the WMA is encrypted just once, with a long random key, and sent across the wire to any purchasers already encrypted. The key is then transmitted to the user and stored in the license file. Both the WMA and the license file are needed for playback.
I could be wrong, but it seems like it would be silly to separate the license information from the music file unless you were doing something like this. Of course, Microsoft is well-known for silly decisions....
From my limited knowledge of WMA from a miserable two days spent trying to help a friend's daughter with a crappy RCA player and Wal*Mart downloads, I think they may work differently. The license file is separate from the actual WMA file, so I'm betting the WMA is encrypted just once, with a long random key, and sent across the wire to any purchasers already encrypted. The key is then transmitted to the user and stored in the license file. Both the WMA and the license file are needed for playback.
I could be wrong, but it seems like it would be silly to separate the license information from the music file unless you were doing something like this. Of course, Microsoft is well-known for silly decisions....
matticus008
Mar 20, 08:41 PM
@eric_n_dfw
Perhaps you should read what you quote:
legal/illegal and right/wrong do not have to line up with each other in the real world.
I know this isn't directed at me, but you're right. Right/wrong and legal/illegal aren't matching binaries. However, all things that are illegal are wrong. Whether they are simultaneously right (that is, morally justified) depends on the issue. Some things that are legal can be wrong while being right as well. In extreme cases, the morally right thing can be in direct conflict with the law, warranting illegal action. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, something that is "right" while simultaneously against the law is an issue that needs to be dealt with through legitimate change within the system.
That's why democracies exist--to give the people the ability to change the law and prevent the law from infringing on individual or group rights. The law, in this case, is not one of the extreme situations and there is not legitimate harm/reason to break the law except that it's easier and more convenient. There is no moral offense being committed by the law, and undermining the rule of law is not a justifiable offense over something as trivial as music use rights. In other words, it might be morally okay to use songs in your wedding video, but it's not morally okay to break the law in order to put them there when you have legal means of either doing so (which is the case--buy the CD) or to change the law to allow it (unnecessary here).
Perhaps you should read what you quote:
legal/illegal and right/wrong do not have to line up with each other in the real world.
I know this isn't directed at me, but you're right. Right/wrong and legal/illegal aren't matching binaries. However, all things that are illegal are wrong. Whether they are simultaneously right (that is, morally justified) depends on the issue. Some things that are legal can be wrong while being right as well. In extreme cases, the morally right thing can be in direct conflict with the law, warranting illegal action. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, something that is "right" while simultaneously against the law is an issue that needs to be dealt with through legitimate change within the system.
That's why democracies exist--to give the people the ability to change the law and prevent the law from infringing on individual or group rights. The law, in this case, is not one of the extreme situations and there is not legitimate harm/reason to break the law except that it's easier and more convenient. There is no moral offense being committed by the law, and undermining the rule of law is not a justifiable offense over something as trivial as music use rights. In other words, it might be morally okay to use songs in your wedding video, but it's not morally okay to break the law in order to put them there when you have legal means of either doing so (which is the case--buy the CD) or to change the law to allow it (unnecessary here).
ericinboston
Apr 28, 09:17 AM
I would LOVE to buy an iMac...and have been wanting for a few years...but $1200 for essentially a web surfing machine and iPod syncing machine is just too expensive for what it will be used for. My 4+ year old Mac Mini works just fine and even that was a lot of money when I got it ($1200).
A very high percentage of consumers (as is reflected still now in 2011 personal computer marketshare) primarily do web-based activities, a little bit of Office productivity, and iTunes and thus do not need to spend 2x the money for product B when product A is fine. Why buy a Mac for $1200+ when a $600 Windows box (including nice 20"+ monitor) will fit the bill just fine?
Not trying to start the never-ending debate but this is the reality.
I love the iMac look...but after a few minutes of pondering, I can get a machine for 1/2 the price with the same size monitor that will do exactly what I (and 90% of consumers) need. If you're a Mac lover or have to use the Mac for particular reasons, of course the Mac is going to be your choice. But for the high majority of consumers in the world...there's just no need to spend twice the price.
A very high percentage of consumers (as is reflected still now in 2011 personal computer marketshare) primarily do web-based activities, a little bit of Office productivity, and iTunes and thus do not need to spend 2x the money for product B when product A is fine. Why buy a Mac for $1200+ when a $600 Windows box (including nice 20"+ monitor) will fit the bill just fine?
Not trying to start the never-ending debate but this is the reality.
I love the iMac look...but after a few minutes of pondering, I can get a machine for 1/2 the price with the same size monitor that will do exactly what I (and 90% of consumers) need. If you're a Mac lover or have to use the Mac for particular reasons, of course the Mac is going to be your choice. But for the high majority of consumers in the world...there's just no need to spend twice the price.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 10:11 AM
No. What I wanted to say is that fat persons CAN do something against that condition, but homosexuals can't. Obviously. So they deserve such actions like It Gets Better more than fat people. In my honest opinion.
But are you saying homosexuals should change it if they could?
But are you saying homosexuals should change it if they could?
spillproof
Apr 13, 12:25 AM
I love me some timeline! I wonder what the student pricing will look like because as of now, I can pick up the full FCS for $300.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:58 PM
Your clients represent the extreme minority of advertising content today. While that is changing, I concede, most advertisers are still in the old paradigm.
Not the guys with the Money.
The mom and pops perhaps, but all the players know what is coming and are preparing for it via cooperative partnerships, sponsorships, viral, geurilla, etc.
Not the guys with the Money.
The mom and pops perhaps, but all the players know what is coming and are preparing for it via cooperative partnerships, sponsorships, viral, geurilla, etc.
valkraider
Apr 28, 10:39 AM
most people are not going to throw down a grand for a computer for the kids to take to school.
My child's school is part of the USA "laptop schools" program and every child from 5th grade through graduation is required to have a laptop. The only three they are allowed to choose from (currently) are PCs and cost $1099, $1649, and $2029.
I looked at the specs and all three models are similarly priced as equivalent Mac laptops (actually the $1099 PC laptop is less well equipped than the similar Mac laptop).
We are not allowed to buy them Macs. (It is something that angers me quite a bit, that they require us to buy the equipment but won't let us buy what we want - in my opinion if they want specific equipment, they should buy it - since I am paying the $$$ I should be able to buy what system I want as long as it meets certain requirements).
My child's school is part of the USA "laptop schools" program and every child from 5th grade through graduation is required to have a laptop. The only three they are allowed to choose from (currently) are PCs and cost $1099, $1649, and $2029.
I looked at the specs and all three models are similarly priced as equivalent Mac laptops (actually the $1099 PC laptop is less well equipped than the similar Mac laptop).
We are not allowed to buy them Macs. (It is something that angers me quite a bit, that they require us to buy the equipment but won't let us buy what we want - in my opinion if they want specific equipment, they should buy it - since I am paying the $$$ I should be able to buy what system I want as long as it meets certain requirements).
0 comments:
Post a Comment