bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 08:33 AM
Hardcore Gamer? You've lost your way.
Hehe. You're funny.
Hardcore gaming is playing a lot of games, the hardware bragging & taxonomy of gamers is a penis envy thing.
I'm off to play with my 9.7 incher.
Hehe. You're funny.
Hardcore gaming is playing a lot of games, the hardware bragging & taxonomy of gamers is a penis envy thing.
I'm off to play with my 9.7 incher.
Michaelgtrusa
May 2, 10:07 AM
Be careful.
dethmaShine
Apr 21, 01:04 PM
1. What "punch"? If we're going to use arbitrary words, iPhones beat Android to the "desert". FACT
2. Phone carriers selling Android devices and offering incentives helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. I fixed it for you.
3. No, they aren't. Please link some sources stating so?
4. Sure, I'll give you that if you want to say it's a ripoff. This is a whole other issue.
5. Sure. It's bound to.
6. That tends to be the way of the Open Source area.
7. I'd hope so. Any competitors selling iPhones should probably be sued, since you know, that'd be a blatant rip off.
8. Sure.
9. Yes, yes and yes.
10. They're really just as bad as Apple's fanboys. I've noticed that the only difference in comments from the huge Apple fanboys and anti Apple fanboys are generally the words "Best" and "Worst" get flip flopped.
1. In terms of marketshare. That's precisely what I meant. It's quite understood. FACT.
2. But android is helping. There's shouldn't be a doubt. Maybe Apple says NO to that because of brand quality OR Apple cannot afford to lose that profit; whatever is the case, android helps with the help of the carriers or vice versa. FACT.
3. HTC's quarterly report. Google it. FACT.
4. But still, its a ripoff. FACT.
5. True FACT.
6. FACT FACT.
7. Again, nitpicking things. FACT is a FACT.
8. FACTy FACT.
9. Yes is a FACT.
10. No, they are not. Go anywhere; youtube, MR, Engadget, TC; they are really pathetic and disgusting; not android users, android fanboys. FACT.
You forgot
1. Battlestar Galactica (remake) is the best sci fi show of all time (FACT)
2. Toaster Strudels are better than Pop Tarts (FACT)
3. Kennedy was shot by multiple gunman (FACT)
4. Brian Tong from CNET is worthless (FACT)
5. SC2 is the best competitive RTS (FACT)
6. Green is the new pink (FACT)
7. Lady Ga Ga was NOT born that way (FACT)
8. Republicans are heartless (FACT)
9. Democrats promise everything and never deliver (FACT)
10. OJ did it (FACT)
FACT. :mad:
2. Phone carriers selling Android devices and offering incentives helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. I fixed it for you.
3. No, they aren't. Please link some sources stating so?
4. Sure, I'll give you that if you want to say it's a ripoff. This is a whole other issue.
5. Sure. It's bound to.
6. That tends to be the way of the Open Source area.
7. I'd hope so. Any competitors selling iPhones should probably be sued, since you know, that'd be a blatant rip off.
8. Sure.
9. Yes, yes and yes.
10. They're really just as bad as Apple's fanboys. I've noticed that the only difference in comments from the huge Apple fanboys and anti Apple fanboys are generally the words "Best" and "Worst" get flip flopped.
1. In terms of marketshare. That's precisely what I meant. It's quite understood. FACT.
2. But android is helping. There's shouldn't be a doubt. Maybe Apple says NO to that because of brand quality OR Apple cannot afford to lose that profit; whatever is the case, android helps with the help of the carriers or vice versa. FACT.
3. HTC's quarterly report. Google it. FACT.
4. But still, its a ripoff. FACT.
5. True FACT.
6. FACT FACT.
7. Again, nitpicking things. FACT is a FACT.
8. FACTy FACT.
9. Yes is a FACT.
10. No, they are not. Go anywhere; youtube, MR, Engadget, TC; they are really pathetic and disgusting; not android users, android fanboys. FACT.
You forgot
1. Battlestar Galactica (remake) is the best sci fi show of all time (FACT)
2. Toaster Strudels are better than Pop Tarts (FACT)
3. Kennedy was shot by multiple gunman (FACT)
4. Brian Tong from CNET is worthless (FACT)
5. SC2 is the best competitive RTS (FACT)
6. Green is the new pink (FACT)
7. Lady Ga Ga was NOT born that way (FACT)
8. Republicans are heartless (FACT)
9. Democrats promise everything and never deliver (FACT)
10. OJ did it (FACT)
FACT. :mad:
macnvrbck
Sep 12, 06:31 PM
http://www.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/img3679.jpg
Anyone got a screenshot from the keynote?
Anyone got a screenshot from the keynote?
techwarrior
Nov 12, 12:14 PM
Add me to the happy list. I have had all iPhones since 3G, and rarely lose a call, one or two places I typically go have poor service so I let others know I will call back if I drop in these spots. MCell has done wonders for the poor service at my home.
ATT is the only service I can get at work. Due to my office being an R&D facility for a company that makes phone systems they block all external wireless signals and then put ATT repeaters in the building.
So, for me, it would take a lot to push me over the edge to move to another provider. I do like how others are pushing ATT to adopt with more competitive plan options and think competition from TMo, Sprint/Nextel and Vz can only be good for those of us who can stay with ATT.
ATT is the only service I can get at work. Due to my office being an R&D facility for a company that makes phone systems they block all external wireless signals and then put ATT repeaters in the building.
So, for me, it would take a lot to push me over the edge to move to another provider. I do like how others are pushing ATT to adopt with more competitive plan options and think competition from TMo, Sprint/Nextel and Vz can only be good for those of us who can stay with ATT.
skunk
Apr 27, 03:18 PM
The fact he is described on tablets in Ugarit doesn't matter for the purposes of ontological arguments that try to answer does "God" (the Judaeo-Christian God) exist?No gods exist. There is not a shred of evidence, ontological or otherwise.
GGJstudios
Apr 14, 03:03 PM
Stompy, a few posts back somebody mentioned that the OP was later banned. That might explain why he hasn't come back.
The OP was not banned. Just check the 1st post of this thread to see the OP is still around.
The OP was not banned. Just check the 1st post of this thread to see the OP is still around.
Mord
Jul 12, 05:55 AM
At what point servers began to demand less than workstations or regular desktops? Server-grade hardware (SCSI cards for example) are 8x pcie, so I expect nothing less from Apple server hardware. Anything less would be a joke.
i meant for graphics.
oh and stop with the quadruple posting, you can reply and open the thread in another tab and copy quotes across to multi quote, or just learn the quoting syntax and use one window
as for why mac users use photoshop it's because the competitors suck, gimp is ok but nothing more, corel products make me want to pull my hair out and don't talk to me about fireworks is a completely different product.
i meant for graphics.
oh and stop with the quadruple posting, you can reply and open the thread in another tab and copy quotes across to multi quote, or just learn the quoting syntax and use one window
as for why mac users use photoshop it's because the competitors suck, gimp is ok but nothing more, corel products make me want to pull my hair out and don't talk to me about fireworks is a completely different product.
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
CaoCao
Mar 25, 11:17 PM
Then I think you misunderstand what the word 'mainstream' means. The majority of Catholics do not care about the Vatican's line on birth control, for instance.
The Public Religion Research Institute recently published a report based on a survey of Catholics across the United States. Amongst other findings:
A small minority of Catholics may support your views, but they would hardly be considered mainstream.
The majority of American Catholics, but this is because many are cafeteria Catholics. I imagine if you only count people who go to Mass once or more a month (you're supposed to go every week) the numbers would be significantly different. Also a contributing factor is priests have been too timid to talk about it.
No- you have to prove why I should be denied that right. It clearly exists.
You guys continue to ignore that marriage is in fact, a right. That has already been proven to you. And again, quit comparing us to weapons of mass destruction or murderers. I'm sick of it.
I am not lost. I know exactly where I am. I am also not a sheep. I don't blindly follow any leader or religion.
Prove why I should be denied the right to copulate in public, and think of the children is not an acceptable answer
On the contrary, it is the obligation of the United States government to prove it has a legitimate interest in preventing you from doing something, especially if it is preventing you from doing something it permits to another demographic segment.
I suspect the government could demonstrate this to a court's satisfaction, particularly if it denies that ability to everyone equally. Even "treads are hell on asphalt" is a rational reason.
Both you and NathanMuir really think you're onto something with this red herring, don't you? To ignore a point is not to discredit it.
Tell that to the people who have benefitted from the "love and support" of Christians including Catholics. I know it's the party line, but you know quite well that "love and support" its a smokescreen for forced obedience wearing a phony smile. What religious leaders of all stripes "love" is to be obeyed.
Including for "lost sheep" who are not Catholic by manipulating secular law and convincing their followers it is an abuse of their civil rights if secular law does not follow religious law.
sure, homosexuals can go to a "church" and have a "wedding" ceremony, no one is preventing them.
What treads?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Centauro01.JPEG/300px-Centauro01.JPEG
Why should we have to prove that we have the right to be married? Either we all are allowed or none of us should be allowed. Why are you more important than I am? Why should you be allowed to get married and I can't?
And your lost sheep comment is exactly what is wrong with the Catholic view. We aren't lost and we certainly don't need to change our ways based on archaic principals and hypocrisy.
The Vatican needs to clean it's own house and stay out of mine.
Men are allowed to get married to women and vice versa everyone is equal (regardless of the reason).
I agree.
Speaking as one who was raised Catholic (the vast majority of my extended family are Catholics), I have observed that while Catholics are essentially socially conservative, they are in most cases less conservative than the Pope would have you believe, as your linked study indicates. Most Catholics support artificial contraception, many support same-sex marriage and abortion. As a group they are definitely less conservative than fundamentalist/born-again Christian sects, though they certainly have their hard-line elements, especially in developing countries.
The Church is becoming increasingly conservative. In the US people are working to destroy the spirit of Vatican II and teach what Vatican II actually is.
If that's what you mean by mainstream catholic, then i think i can safely say that less than 1% of the world in mainstream catholic. I honestly don't know one single catholic that follows all the rules of the catholic church. Really, not one. And i know lots of catholics.
And what do you mean by change their behavior? You mean make them straight? Not gonna happen, and the church will never win this one.
I know plenty of Catholics who are loyal to the Magisterium and I don't even attend Tridentine Masses. Yes people slip, but we help them up.
The Catholic Church recognizes that people don't choose to be homosexual, however it does recognize that acting on those urges is entirely their choice. Chastity is what they are called to.
The Public Religion Research Institute recently published a report based on a survey of Catholics across the United States. Amongst other findings:
A small minority of Catholics may support your views, but they would hardly be considered mainstream.
The majority of American Catholics, but this is because many are cafeteria Catholics. I imagine if you only count people who go to Mass once or more a month (you're supposed to go every week) the numbers would be significantly different. Also a contributing factor is priests have been too timid to talk about it.
No- you have to prove why I should be denied that right. It clearly exists.
You guys continue to ignore that marriage is in fact, a right. That has already been proven to you. And again, quit comparing us to weapons of mass destruction or murderers. I'm sick of it.
I am not lost. I know exactly where I am. I am also not a sheep. I don't blindly follow any leader or religion.
Prove why I should be denied the right to copulate in public, and think of the children is not an acceptable answer
On the contrary, it is the obligation of the United States government to prove it has a legitimate interest in preventing you from doing something, especially if it is preventing you from doing something it permits to another demographic segment.
I suspect the government could demonstrate this to a court's satisfaction, particularly if it denies that ability to everyone equally. Even "treads are hell on asphalt" is a rational reason.
Both you and NathanMuir really think you're onto something with this red herring, don't you? To ignore a point is not to discredit it.
Tell that to the people who have benefitted from the "love and support" of Christians including Catholics. I know it's the party line, but you know quite well that "love and support" its a smokescreen for forced obedience wearing a phony smile. What religious leaders of all stripes "love" is to be obeyed.
Including for "lost sheep" who are not Catholic by manipulating secular law and convincing their followers it is an abuse of their civil rights if secular law does not follow religious law.
sure, homosexuals can go to a "church" and have a "wedding" ceremony, no one is preventing them.
What treads?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Centauro01.JPEG/300px-Centauro01.JPEG
Why should we have to prove that we have the right to be married? Either we all are allowed or none of us should be allowed. Why are you more important than I am? Why should you be allowed to get married and I can't?
And your lost sheep comment is exactly what is wrong with the Catholic view. We aren't lost and we certainly don't need to change our ways based on archaic principals and hypocrisy.
The Vatican needs to clean it's own house and stay out of mine.
Men are allowed to get married to women and vice versa everyone is equal (regardless of the reason).
I agree.
Speaking as one who was raised Catholic (the vast majority of my extended family are Catholics), I have observed that while Catholics are essentially socially conservative, they are in most cases less conservative than the Pope would have you believe, as your linked study indicates. Most Catholics support artificial contraception, many support same-sex marriage and abortion. As a group they are definitely less conservative than fundamentalist/born-again Christian sects, though they certainly have their hard-line elements, especially in developing countries.
The Church is becoming increasingly conservative. In the US people are working to destroy the spirit of Vatican II and teach what Vatican II actually is.
If that's what you mean by mainstream catholic, then i think i can safely say that less than 1% of the world in mainstream catholic. I honestly don't know one single catholic that follows all the rules of the catholic church. Really, not one. And i know lots of catholics.
And what do you mean by change their behavior? You mean make them straight? Not gonna happen, and the church will never win this one.
I know plenty of Catholics who are loyal to the Magisterium and I don't even attend Tridentine Masses. Yes people slip, but we help them up.
The Catholic Church recognizes that people don't choose to be homosexual, however it does recognize that acting on those urges is entirely their choice. Chastity is what they are called to.
Doctor Q
Mar 18, 04:10 PM
Apple's "fix" for this is fairly simple. Send the files in an ecrypted form. In order to maximize caching, use a common key that all iTunes clients have built-in, sort of like DVDs and CES. The client can then decrypt with the common key and re-encrypt with the DRM key.Don't iTMS and iTunes already do this?
Deimo
Jul 11, 11:19 PM
One thing i was just thinking... with some laptop vendors considering Conroe due to it being pretty damn efficient, how about this one:
MacBook - Merom - optimized for LONG battery life
MacBook Pro - Conroe - optimized to be a true mobile professional workstation
MacBook - Merom - optimized for LONG battery life
MacBook Pro - Conroe - optimized to be a true mobile professional workstation
NT1440
Nov 5, 10:02 PM
I completely beleive it will surpass the iphone in marketshare, after all its going to be on just about every popular cell phone in the future, as well as crap phones. You gain marketshare when you flood the market, just like windows.
That said, from what I've read, android is actually a good platform, meaning that apple will continue to innovate to stay ahead.
That said, from what I've read, android is actually a good platform, meaning that apple will continue to innovate to stay ahead.
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. 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.
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. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
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. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. 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.
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. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
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. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
citizenzen
Apr 24, 10:03 AM
Intelligence has something to do with it.
Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in Human Evolutionary History, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm) — More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.
The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."
"General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."
Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.
Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."
I think the last paragraph is a key to why atheists hold out for proof. We've seen time and time again over history where something that has been attributed to the supernatural or a God turned out to be quite natural.
Likewise questions about the origins of the universe, that today seem utterly mysterious and unanswerable, may one day be resolved and explained within the natural confines.
Atheists are loathe to latch on to supernatural conclusions when that camp has been proven wrong time and time and time again.
Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in Human Evolutionary History, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm) — More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.
The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."
"General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."
Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.
Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."
I think the last paragraph is a key to why atheists hold out for proof. We've seen time and time again over history where something that has been attributed to the supernatural or a God turned out to be quite natural.
Likewise questions about the origins of the universe, that today seem utterly mysterious and unanswerable, may one day be resolved and explained within the natural confines.
Atheists are loathe to latch on to supernatural conclusions when that camp has been proven wrong time and time and time again.
Evangelion
Mar 19, 08:43 AM
It's theft, pure and simple.
No it is not. It's not theft in any defnition of the word! Seriously: if I walk in to a store and take CD from the shelf, and not pay it, I'm stealing. If I make an identical copy of the CD and leave the original on the shelf, I'm not stealing, I'm committing a copyright-infringment. But I'm not stealing.
Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?
I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven. Then they removed the ability to share/stream your songs from itunes to others. Little by little, you feel the DRM-noose tightening around your necks. It seems like a major PR-coup to me, when you have Apple reducing your rights little by little, and you guys are screaming "Yes! Reduce our rights even more!"
No it is not. It's not theft in any defnition of the word! Seriously: if I walk in to a store and take CD from the shelf, and not pay it, I'm stealing. If I make an identical copy of the CD and leave the original on the shelf, I'm not stealing, I'm committing a copyright-infringment. But I'm not stealing.
Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?
I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven. Then they removed the ability to share/stream your songs from itunes to others. Little by little, you feel the DRM-noose tightening around your necks. It seems like a major PR-coup to me, when you have Apple reducing your rights little by little, and you guys are screaming "Yes! Reduce our rights even more!"
Liquorpuki
Mar 16, 12:40 PM
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than powering OLD stations, oil does not have a direct role in our portfolio.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than powering OLD stations, oil does not have a direct role in our portfolio.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
econgeek
Apr 12, 11:07 PM
I can't even believe I was arguing with someone who things that magic bullet and Color are even remotely the same thing.
Goodnight, junior.
I can't believe there are people such as yourself with such a stark lack of integrity that you would lie about what I have said in order to insult me... and simultaneously lack the basic wisdom to recognize that quoting me saying what I actually said in the very message where you tell the lie makes the lie obvious to anyone with basic comprehension skills.
I mentioned the likelihood of a plugin system that would allow grading, and I mentioned magic bullet:
http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/products/all/magic-bullet-looks/
I never said that it and color were "the same", I just gave it as an example of something, like Color, that could be integrated into the app workflow via a plugin architecture. I never made a comparison between them, not that comparing a color grading tool like color to magic bullet looks, which is a color grading tool, is all that radical a notion-- if I had made the comparison.
I'm amazed, if this stark lack of basic integrity and honesty, isn't just you hiding behind an alias online, that you could ever maintain gainful employment acting this way.
You owe me an apology.
Goodnight, junior.
I can't believe there are people such as yourself with such a stark lack of integrity that you would lie about what I have said in order to insult me... and simultaneously lack the basic wisdom to recognize that quoting me saying what I actually said in the very message where you tell the lie makes the lie obvious to anyone with basic comprehension skills.
I mentioned the likelihood of a plugin system that would allow grading, and I mentioned magic bullet:
http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/products/all/magic-bullet-looks/
I never said that it and color were "the same", I just gave it as an example of something, like Color, that could be integrated into the app workflow via a plugin architecture. I never made a comparison between them, not that comparing a color grading tool like color to magic bullet looks, which is a color grading tool, is all that radical a notion-- if I had made the comparison.
I'm amazed, if this stark lack of basic integrity and honesty, isn't just you hiding behind an alias online, that you could ever maintain gainful employment acting this way.
You owe me an apology.
portishead
Apr 12, 10:45 PM
ROTFL!! Sorry, I couldn't help but laugh! Start burnin' them bridges early, son!!
Looks cool, but I'm on the fence about it all. It's chump change and probably a fun tool to play with. I don't see it replacing some of the larger suites. It's 'pro' editing for the masses but I'm sure many will keep their Adobe and AVID tools around for more orgranized productions.
Cheers!
It's probably not going to cause massive amounts of people to switch I agree. It's hard to say a lot after this presentation. It's definitely got some awesome features. We'll have to wait and see if it's ready for a full workflow from ingest to export.
Looks cool, but I'm on the fence about it all. It's chump change and probably a fun tool to play with. I don't see it replacing some of the larger suites. It's 'pro' editing for the masses but I'm sure many will keep their Adobe and AVID tools around for more orgranized productions.
Cheers!
It's probably not going to cause massive amounts of people to switch I agree. It's hard to say a lot after this presentation. It's definitely got some awesome features. We'll have to wait and see if it's ready for a full workflow from ingest to export.
AndroidfoLife
Apr 20, 08:21 PM
Once you use Windows, you are doing something stupid :D
Well not really, I guess if you want a computer that is cheap and weak, you can get a Windows computer.
My Windows PC is not cheap. I built it my self it is made of better parts then any apple computer made. It is also fast as hell for what i use it for (Videogames). Please do not generalize all non-mac pcs and for the love of anything right in the world do not compare an OS to hardware.
Applying a cost to tethering is your carriers choice.
In many many places tethering comes for free on the iPhone. Certainly does for me and I'm with Australia's most abusive carrier.
If your carrier allows free tether on one phone but not another isn't that anti-competitive behavior?
Its build right into the OS to allow tethering for Androids. I am not sure how exactly it is performed on iOS.
This is the company who is in court saying that App Store is a registered brand name, and thou shalt have no other App Stores.
Then they themselves say that THEIR App Store is the largest.
Hippoc... hypocr... how was it spelled again?
The android market has been growing at a faster rate then the Appstore. It will react to the growing amount of users on the platform. But what i am about to say complete makes the last comment null. It does not matter how many apps it matter how many apps are usable. I will count a giant app store as a plus when anyone can put all those apps on their phone.
The experience is degraded because Android lacks the Apple-integrated experience that we care about. Saying Android can do anything iPhone can do is like saying that both an Hyundai Accent and a Ferrari will get you from A to B. Yes, both can do this, but it's the experience that matters. The point isn't the fact that both have apps and both can browse the internet. Most people don't care about overclocking their phones or installing custom ROMs or "software freedom," whatever that means.
I'm a former two-year Android user. The transition to iPhone 4 was great.
I can say that the Google integrated experience is what I care about or if I Chose lack of one.
unless you really really want widgets and Flash, otherwise I can't think of anything better on Android.
Btw: my Prius gets much better gas mileage than a Ferrari. :)
I don't think apple really has any think better on android. Android does have a file system, better notification and real multitasking.
Well not really, I guess if you want a computer that is cheap and weak, you can get a Windows computer.
My Windows PC is not cheap. I built it my self it is made of better parts then any apple computer made. It is also fast as hell for what i use it for (Videogames). Please do not generalize all non-mac pcs and for the love of anything right in the world do not compare an OS to hardware.
Applying a cost to tethering is your carriers choice.
In many many places tethering comes for free on the iPhone. Certainly does for me and I'm with Australia's most abusive carrier.
If your carrier allows free tether on one phone but not another isn't that anti-competitive behavior?
Its build right into the OS to allow tethering for Androids. I am not sure how exactly it is performed on iOS.
This is the company who is in court saying that App Store is a registered brand name, and thou shalt have no other App Stores.
Then they themselves say that THEIR App Store is the largest.
Hippoc... hypocr... how was it spelled again?
The android market has been growing at a faster rate then the Appstore. It will react to the growing amount of users on the platform. But what i am about to say complete makes the last comment null. It does not matter how many apps it matter how many apps are usable. I will count a giant app store as a plus when anyone can put all those apps on their phone.
The experience is degraded because Android lacks the Apple-integrated experience that we care about. Saying Android can do anything iPhone can do is like saying that both an Hyundai Accent and a Ferrari will get you from A to B. Yes, both can do this, but it's the experience that matters. The point isn't the fact that both have apps and both can browse the internet. Most people don't care about overclocking their phones or installing custom ROMs or "software freedom," whatever that means.
I'm a former two-year Android user. The transition to iPhone 4 was great.
I can say that the Google integrated experience is what I care about or if I Chose lack of one.
unless you really really want widgets and Flash, otherwise I can't think of anything better on Android.
Btw: my Prius gets much better gas mileage than a Ferrari. :)
I don't think apple really has any think better on android. Android does have a file system, better notification and real multitasking.
gnasher729
May 2, 12:28 PM
I haven't seen this malware first hand, but a zip file can be made with absolute paths, making "unzipping" the file put everything where it needs to be to start up automatically on next log in/reboot.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
What makes you think MacOS X still contains directory traversal vulnerabilities that were reported in 2005? Do you really think MacOS X hasn't included the known fixes that were added six years ago? Opening a zip file on MacOS X _is_ safe. Of course that zip file can contain malware, which will then by on your Mac, exactly as if you had downloaded it directly. You still have to start the malware yourself, and you will still be asked by the OS if you really, really want to run the malware.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
What makes you think MacOS X still contains directory traversal vulnerabilities that were reported in 2005? Do you really think MacOS X hasn't included the known fixes that were added six years ago? Opening a zip file on MacOS X _is_ safe. Of course that zip file can contain malware, which will then by on your Mac, exactly as if you had downloaded it directly. You still have to start the malware yourself, and you will still be asked by the OS if you really, really want to run the malware.
Blue Velvet
Mar 27, 05:26 PM
But no one here has proved that Nicolosi is an unreliable representative of his field.
Sorry, but that's not how it works.
You expressed approval for his findings, you were the one who explicitly made him a topic of conversation. I and Gelfin asked you, based precisely on what, knowing full well the disreputable reputation he and his organisation has and the damage that he has done to many people... every major professional organisation in the behavioural sciences disagrees with him. Pointing out the core belief behind his philosophy, you seemed ignorant of it, yet somehow approved of his findings.
No-one in this conversation is a clinical psychologist or a psychiatrist, so they have to lean on reputable sources. The Surgeon General of the United States is just one example of a medically and scientifically reliable voice. And somehow, that's not good enough? Well, there's more:
No major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and most of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation. These include the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers in the USA, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the Australian Psychological Society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Research_%26_Therapy_of_Homosexuality#Position_of_professional_organization s_on_sexual_orientation_change_efforts
Why don't you tell us precisely why all these organisations are wrong and why NARTH and their ilk are right, since you claim to understand and agree with their findings?
Sorry, but that's not how it works.
You expressed approval for his findings, you were the one who explicitly made him a topic of conversation. I and Gelfin asked you, based precisely on what, knowing full well the disreputable reputation he and his organisation has and the damage that he has done to many people... every major professional organisation in the behavioural sciences disagrees with him. Pointing out the core belief behind his philosophy, you seemed ignorant of it, yet somehow approved of his findings.
No-one in this conversation is a clinical psychologist or a psychiatrist, so they have to lean on reputable sources. The Surgeon General of the United States is just one example of a medically and scientifically reliable voice. And somehow, that's not good enough? Well, there's more:
No major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and most of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation. These include the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers in the USA, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the Australian Psychological Society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Research_%26_Therapy_of_Homosexuality#Position_of_professional_organization s_on_sexual_orientation_change_efforts
Why don't you tell us precisely why all these organisations are wrong and why NARTH and their ilk are right, since you claim to understand and agree with their findings?
acearchie
Apr 13, 05:14 AM
Some of those questions actually were answered (for example that full keyboard control has been retained) and others are more or less no-brainers (like the stabilization question - you can enable/disable and even fine-tune that even in the dumbed-down iMovie, so why shouldn't you be able to do that in Final Cut).
Does that mean that all the features will be retained then since if I can currently operate a tool from my keyboard in FCP7 then surely that same tool will be available in FCPX.
On a side note Lethal wanted to know whether the keyboard was programmable not if it was the same layout.
Full keynote has been uploaded to YouTube -
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VLwsfBa71U
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfgnyRSRyzg
3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3OI3RGdhrM
4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M16Hb4_3oOY
Hmmm could have been positioned better personally but it�s better than nothing!
Does that mean that all the features will be retained then since if I can currently operate a tool from my keyboard in FCP7 then surely that same tool will be available in FCPX.
On a side note Lethal wanted to know whether the keyboard was programmable not if it was the same layout.
Full keynote has been uploaded to YouTube -
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VLwsfBa71U
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfgnyRSRyzg
3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3OI3RGdhrM
4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M16Hb4_3oOY
Hmmm could have been positioned better personally but it�s better than nothing!
dgree03
Apr 28, 08:47 AM
The complaint isn't that iPads aren't being included in the smart phone market. The complaint is that there is a sole focus on smart phones when comparing Android vs. iOS market share when clearly the iPad and iPod Touch are very significant portions of the iOS platform.
This is not a "smart phone" platform battle. This is a new mobile computing platform battle. But since Android has no viable competitors to the iPad or iPhone Touch, people (Fandroids and analysts alike) conveniently like to leave those devices out of the equation.
The tangible item is the smartphone hardware itself. Thats like saying the battle between Sony and Samsung LCD tv's, isnt exactly about tv's... its about Google TV(Sony) vs Samsung Smart TV.
This is not a "smart phone" platform battle. This is a new mobile computing platform battle. But since Android has no viable competitors to the iPad or iPhone Touch, people (Fandroids and analysts alike) conveniently like to leave those devices out of the equation.
The tangible item is the smartphone hardware itself. Thats like saying the battle between Sony and Samsung LCD tv's, isnt exactly about tv's... its about Google TV(Sony) vs Samsung Smart TV.
No comments:
Post a Comment