munkery
May 2, 01:38 PM
That's what I'd like to know. I can't even open HTML pages downloaded from my own website without OS X warning me before opening it, and yet this story makes it sound as if the file contained in the zip is somehow launching on its own without any user notification. Sounds like BS to me. What is the source for this?
It decompressed the zip file and executes code to launch an installer. This is considered a safe action because the user still has to continue to run the installer.
Installation of MacDefender via the installer requires password authentication by the user.
It decompressed the zip file and executes code to launch an installer. This is considered a safe action because the user still has to continue to run the installer.
Installation of MacDefender via the installer requires password authentication by the user.
beaster
Sep 12, 06:29 PM
Honestly though, who would want to stream HD??
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
If you cant see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV then you need a better TV or a better HD source. Also, 99% of the planet would be hard pressed to see much of a difference between 1080i and 720p, all else equal. Both have almost the idential # of pixels displayed per second. 720p is usually considered superior for fast-moving video, like sports (which is why ESPN, ABC, and FOX standardized on it). 1080i might have the edge on talk shows/news/etc. Now you may in fact be seeing a difference on your setup due to your particular display and/or source content, but in an apples to apples comparison, 720p and 1080i are neck and neck.
-Sean
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
If you cant see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV then you need a better TV or a better HD source. Also, 99% of the planet would be hard pressed to see much of a difference between 1080i and 720p, all else equal. Both have almost the idential # of pixels displayed per second. 720p is usually considered superior for fast-moving video, like sports (which is why ESPN, ABC, and FOX standardized on it). 1080i might have the edge on talk shows/news/etc. Now you may in fact be seeing a difference on your setup due to your particular display and/or source content, but in an apples to apples comparison, 720p and 1080i are neck and neck.
-Sean
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 10:33 PM
Would it make a difference if a huge portion of what you've been exposed to, regarding religion/Christianity, was fundamentally incorrect? For example, there's no such place as hellfire; nobody is going to burn forever. Everybody isn't going to heaven; people will live right here on the earth. If you learned that a huge portion of those really crazy doctrines were simply wrong, would it cause you to view Christianity/religion differently?
A lot of people need the threat of hell to make them behave or act ethically/morally. What could be worse than eternal damnation?
Certainly nothing physical.
A lot of people need the threat of hell to make them behave or act ethically/morally. What could be worse than eternal damnation?
Certainly nothing physical.
gugy
Sep 12, 05:19 PM
If the iTV streams HD content, then it's going to be heavily compressed HD content. Depending on the quality of the compression, it may look great on your flat panel and it may look just okay, we'll see.
Let's hope so.
I had trouble with Airtunes, so I have my fingers crossed expecting ITV will do a better job with music and videos (HDTV preferably).
If Apple can make this happen, this ITV hardware will be killer IMHO.
Let's hope so.
I had trouble with Airtunes, so I have my fingers crossed expecting ITV will do a better job with music and videos (HDTV preferably).
If Apple can make this happen, this ITV hardware will be killer IMHO.
usasalazar
Sep 26, 09:28 PM
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20060926corp.htm
roland.g
Sep 20, 09:56 AM
Since iTV most likely wont be a DVR device, I coughed up $700 today for a Sony DVR instead.
I am sure Apple has a brilliant plan for the iTV, but I fail to see it.
iTV is a great product. If you want a DVR, buy a DVR, if you want the next level of streaming, iTV is it. I already use Airtunes alot. It is hooked up to my stereo. Anytime I'm out in the yard or having a BBQ, I just plug in the Express and some speakers out back and stream music there.
I personally don't buy tv shows and movies, but I like the idea of being able to code anything video into iTunes and view it on my tv along with slideshows, music, trailers.
I am sure Apple has a brilliant plan for the iTV, but I fail to see it.
iTV is a great product. If you want a DVR, buy a DVR, if you want the next level of streaming, iTV is it. I already use Airtunes alot. It is hooked up to my stereo. Anytime I'm out in the yard or having a BBQ, I just plug in the Express and some speakers out back and stream music there.
I personally don't buy tv shows and movies, but I like the idea of being able to code anything video into iTunes and view it on my tv along with slideshows, music, trailers.
dethmaShine
Apr 21, 09:38 AM
1. Android phones beat the iPhone to the punch. FACT.
2. Android ALSO helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. FACT.
3. Android manufacturers are making more money than ever. [Samsung, HTC are a proof] FACT.
4. Android has been a blatant rip off of the iPhone from day 1 OR day -1. FACT.
5. Android provides a very fragmented experience compared to the integrated experience on iOS. FACT.
6. Android is devoid of any viable OR any ecosystem. FACT.
7. Apple makes more profit through the iPhone than all of the competitors combined. FACT.
8. iOS with iTunes, Mac OS X, AppleTV and cloud services provides the best ecosystem available. Arguable. BUT FACT.
9. Apple DOES care about the marketshare; Apple DOES care about the money; APPLE does care about the user experience. FACT.
10. Android fanboys are comparitively bitter and are very rude to the fellow commentors and especially Apple and Steve Jobs. FACT.
That's all I could come up with.
2. Android ALSO helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. FACT.
3. Android manufacturers are making more money than ever. [Samsung, HTC are a proof] FACT.
4. Android has been a blatant rip off of the iPhone from day 1 OR day -1. FACT.
5. Android provides a very fragmented experience compared to the integrated experience on iOS. FACT.
6. Android is devoid of any viable OR any ecosystem. FACT.
7. Apple makes more profit through the iPhone than all of the competitors combined. FACT.
8. iOS with iTunes, Mac OS X, AppleTV and cloud services provides the best ecosystem available. Arguable. BUT FACT.
9. Apple DOES care about the marketshare; Apple DOES care about the money; APPLE does care about the user experience. FACT.
10. Android fanboys are comparitively bitter and are very rude to the fellow commentors and especially Apple and Steve Jobs. FACT.
That's all I could come up with.
Quobobo
Mar 18, 06:46 PM
It's almost like you were planning of going online to one of the illegal music sharing sites, documenting your activities, and then sending that information directly to the RIAA with your name and address with a note asking them to prosecute.
Except with one key difference: you're paying for the music. If you can buy a CD and rip it to any format you like, why should you have to have DRM on files you (legally) download? This is why I never use online download sites, I don't understand why I should pay for files that are inferiour to what I can download for free. When I pay for music, I'd rather buy a CD that doesn't have any DRM.
Except with one key difference: you're paying for the music. If you can buy a CD and rip it to any format you like, why should you have to have DRM on files you (legally) download? This is why I never use online download sites, I don't understand why I should pay for files that are inferiour to what I can download for free. When I pay for music, I'd rather buy a CD that doesn't have any DRM.
wekes
Aug 29, 04:47 PM
I remember getting my old Power Mac 7500 in an ugly brown box with a message on it saying that apple wasn't using dyed boxes in order to help the environment. That's fine with me. However, I retrospect, I promptly dumped that box in the trash and acutally still use my newer and prettier dyed Apple boxes as storage containers in my storage room--something I never would have done with the ugly, wimpier brown one. So much for the borwn box helping the environment.
IMHO, Greenpeace is not to be trusted. They are highly-biased activists who, like most activist groups (right or left), have the unstated, main goal of needing to justify their continuing existence. Greenpeace, in particular, is notorious for having blinders on to the point they don't have any perspective in the real world beyond the utopian fantasies. I'm all for having reasonable, workable policies that are responsible and benefit society, but letting Greenpeace be the dictator of what those policies should be is naieve and dangerous.
IMHO, Greenpeace is not to be trusted. They are highly-biased activists who, like most activist groups (right or left), have the unstated, main goal of needing to justify their continuing existence. Greenpeace, in particular, is notorious for having blinders on to the point they don't have any perspective in the real world beyond the utopian fantasies. I'm all for having reasonable, workable policies that are responsible and benefit society, but letting Greenpeace be the dictator of what those policies should be is naieve and dangerous.
grooveattack
Apr 13, 02:40 AM
Update: An Apple rep told LoopInsight to stay tuned for news on the rest of the suite:
"Today was just a sneak peak of Final Cut Pro, stay tuned"
Motion and colour should come soon
On FCPX
OH GOD IT LOOKS KINDA LIKE IMOVIE AND IT'S UNDER $1000! clearly not for the pros and now no one can edit on this
*sarcasm*
It has a tidy ui, fully 64bit, it's ganna use all 8 of my cores, can still do exactly what current FCP can do just easier.
Looking forward to it.
I think they will still have the full studio boxed in store, I don't fancy downloading 6 DVDs worth of FCS from the app store, although it would make updates very easy.
"Today was just a sneak peak of Final Cut Pro, stay tuned"
Motion and colour should come soon
On FCPX
OH GOD IT LOOKS KINDA LIKE IMOVIE AND IT'S UNDER $1000! clearly not for the pros and now no one can edit on this
*sarcasm*
It has a tidy ui, fully 64bit, it's ganna use all 8 of my cores, can still do exactly what current FCP can do just easier.
Looking forward to it.
I think they will still have the full studio boxed in store, I don't fancy downloading 6 DVDs worth of FCS from the app store, although it would make updates very easy.
CalBoy
Apr 23, 12:57 AM
No one is concluding that there was a single "bang," and I'm certainly not conflating anything. "Bang" is a metaphor, and no one is relating it to the "origin of life." You're trying inflate your own ego and place your "scientific literacy" on display here by arguing a point that no one is questioning.
You certainly have been dancing around it throughout this thread:
Mercedes Benz CLK 200
Mercedes Benz CLK 200
mercedes-benz clk clk200
Mercedes Clk Convertible 2005.
Mercedes Benz CLK 200
Mercedes Benz CLK 200
Mercedes Benz CLK 200
Mercedes-Benz CLK 200
You certainly have been dancing around it throughout this thread:
Grimace
Jul 11, 10:01 PM
My credit card is ready! I would love a machine to make Aperture a little more zippy.
Phat Elvis
Sep 12, 04:07 PM
There's no need for DVR functionality. Apple will replace your cable subscription. You just subsribe to the shows you want and al la carte other shows after that. Networks will probably even do the season premieres free to get you hooked or add sponsor the shows to make them free. TV on demand is obviously the next wave - even the cable companies know it and have on demand etc. I mean not to be racist but I'm happy to stop paying comcast for the 10+ stations that are in languages I don't even speak. I barely speak english - hahaha.
In conclusion - its the same data - just different timing.
I totally agree with this. This is the perfect device for Apple to start selling subscriptions to shows to replace cable. A la cart cable legislation is picking up steam and this will put iTunes in the cable business. Think about how many households have iPods, now compare that number to the HUGE number of houses that have cable. Wouldn't you rather pay for only the shows that you watch?
The think that worries me is that there is no mention of this device being able to play non-iTunes movies. What about if you back up a DVD to your computer. Can you play it on this? We'll have to wait and see.
In conclusion - its the same data - just different timing.
I totally agree with this. This is the perfect device for Apple to start selling subscriptions to shows to replace cable. A la cart cable legislation is picking up steam and this will put iTunes in the cable business. Think about how many households have iPods, now compare that number to the HUGE number of houses that have cable. Wouldn't you rather pay for only the shows that you watch?
The think that worries me is that there is no mention of this device being able to play non-iTunes movies. What about if you back up a DVD to your computer. Can you play it on this? We'll have to wait and see.
CaryMacGuy
May 5, 04:20 PM
I consistantly drop calls. I will be just sitting in the living room or in a bedroom and BOOM call drop. I am not even moving around and a call will drop. It is really frustrating.
darbus69
Apr 20, 06:55 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
And that's why I find it hilarious how Android enthusiasts always state how "Apple's closed garden" is a negative element, when it's the unregulated nature of Android that degrades the experience.
Please explain to me how I am experiencing a "degraded" experience on my current Android phone?
I can do everything your iPhone can, plus tether at no additional cost and download any song I want for free.
Ease of use in Android is just as simple as an iPhone, with the ability to customize IF YOU SO PLEASE.
So if you would, cut the degraded experience crap.
so glad you think stealing an artists work is a proper and moral thing to do, plz stay on your platform, the rest of us will take the high road and pay an enormous fee of .99 to 1.29 per song...geez
And that's why I find it hilarious how Android enthusiasts always state how "Apple's closed garden" is a negative element, when it's the unregulated nature of Android that degrades the experience.
Please explain to me how I am experiencing a "degraded" experience on my current Android phone?
I can do everything your iPhone can, plus tether at no additional cost and download any song I want for free.
Ease of use in Android is just as simple as an iPhone, with the ability to customize IF YOU SO PLEASE.
So if you would, cut the degraded experience crap.
so glad you think stealing an artists work is a proper and moral thing to do, plz stay on your platform, the rest of us will take the high road and pay an enormous fee of .99 to 1.29 per song...geez
dgree03
Apr 21, 08:49 AM
I agree with everything you just said, it's the same concept as tethering without paying the mandatory fee. People will try to justify stealing in any way possible.
So are you going to tell me that paying for tethering ON TOP OF DATA YOU ALREADY PAID FOR is fair? Data is data is data... 4gb is 4gb no matter how I use it. Tethering cost are a joke!:mad: /end rant
You are joking right?
So are you going to tell me that paying for tethering ON TOP OF DATA YOU ALREADY PAID FOR is fair? Data is data is data... 4gb is 4gb no matter how I use it. Tethering cost are a joke!:mad: /end rant
You are joking right?
MrCrowbar
Jul 12, 08:11 AM
I wish I could say "I'm getting a woodie", but I can't right now... There are people watching :p
Serously I think we'll see woodcrest in the MacPro for sure. Apple wants to stick with the "fastest desktop computer" I think.
Serously I think we'll see woodcrest in the MacPro for sure. Apple wants to stick with the "fastest desktop computer" I think.
Aduntu
Apr 15, 01:06 PM
The problem is, and maybe I misread, that it only counts as "rape" if the woman fights back. All rapes are different, just as all women are, a rape victim I know personally, went into a catatonic state during the sexual assault. So, by that definition, she was "consenting" and should be stoned as well. In some cases, the assailant will threaten death of the victim/victim's family to ensure submission. So do these count as rape, since they're not fighting back?
I wanted to make it clear that a person would need to be in a state of awareness that allowed them to resist. This may not always be the case. Like your example, some people may not be in a state that they are able to resist. The point of those examples in the bible were not to define rape or the final verdicts for cases of rape. They weren't written to judge whether a person was truly raped or not. Every situation is different, and it's in no way implying that a person hasn't been raped because they didn't demonstrate that they were resisting.
The point of my original response to another commenter was to clarify that the bible doesn't simply instruct people to stone a women to death because she was raped.
I wanted to make it clear that a person would need to be in a state of awareness that allowed them to resist. This may not always be the case. Like your example, some people may not be in a state that they are able to resist. The point of those examples in the bible were not to define rape or the final verdicts for cases of rape. They weren't written to judge whether a person was truly raped or not. Every situation is different, and it's in no way implying that a person hasn't been raped because they didn't demonstrate that they were resisting.
The point of my original response to another commenter was to clarify that the bible doesn't simply instruct people to stone a women to death because she was raped.
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.
iJohnHenry
Apr 23, 04:41 PM
There are plenty of gods, and goddesses too, but none of them is real.
I know a few, they are surgeons and oncologists.
Just ask their patients. ;)
I know a few, they are surgeons and oncologists.
Just ask their patients. ;)
Gimzotoy
Mar 18, 11:24 AM
Actually - for several years - and still in some areas - you DO pay for the ability to network your home via wifi - and there is a way for the cable company to prohibit it. Not that they do/will. - but clearly they can since some areas have this as a "premium"
I'm not aware of any non-wireless ISP in the US that charges on a per-computer basis. There are many that offer supported wireless routers to their customers for an additional fee, but there's nothing stopping a customer with enough knowledge from just buying their own.
This whole situation very closely resembles the early days of broadband internet. The ISPs wanted an additional fee (I recall mine was $10/month) for each additional computer on the network. This was enforced by IPs or MAC addresses. Users balked.
Then along came the consumer-level router, which substituted its own IP and MAC address into all packets to/from the local network, making detection difficult.
Since you can determine the manufacturer of the device from its MAC address, the ISPs then started charging extra for any MAC address that indicated it was from a company that manufactures routers (think Linksys, Dlink, etc.). Users balked.
Router companies then added the ability to clone the MAC address of one of the local computers onto the router, effectively making it appear as if all traffic was coming from that one machine. ISPs eventually gave up, and now routers are commonplace.
We're going to see the same progression here eventually, but since all the carriers in the US act as a single unified collective, it will probably take lawsuits to eventually make it happen. When it comes to cellular carriers, there's no such thing as "voting with your dollars" in the US as there is in other parts of the world.
I'm not aware of any non-wireless ISP in the US that charges on a per-computer basis. There are many that offer supported wireless routers to their customers for an additional fee, but there's nothing stopping a customer with enough knowledge from just buying their own.
This whole situation very closely resembles the early days of broadband internet. The ISPs wanted an additional fee (I recall mine was $10/month) for each additional computer on the network. This was enforced by IPs or MAC addresses. Users balked.
Then along came the consumer-level router, which substituted its own IP and MAC address into all packets to/from the local network, making detection difficult.
Since you can determine the manufacturer of the device from its MAC address, the ISPs then started charging extra for any MAC address that indicated it was from a company that manufactures routers (think Linksys, Dlink, etc.). Users balked.
Router companies then added the ability to clone the MAC address of one of the local computers onto the router, effectively making it appear as if all traffic was coming from that one machine. ISPs eventually gave up, and now routers are commonplace.
We're going to see the same progression here eventually, but since all the carriers in the US act as a single unified collective, it will probably take lawsuits to eventually make it happen. When it comes to cellular carriers, there's no such thing as "voting with your dollars" in the US as there is in other parts of the world.
Piggie
Apr 28, 06:20 PM
And I thought the 14.4 modems were slow!
Prestel Pages were 1K each page, so not too bad to come down the phone line at 1200 and your key presses were sent back at 75.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Viewdata_Graphics_1.jpg
http://www.neuralmap.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/prestel_micronet.gif
Prestel Pages were 1K each page, so not too bad to come down the phone line at 1200 and your key presses were sent back at 75.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Viewdata_Graphics_1.jpg
http://www.neuralmap.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/prestel_micronet.gif
100Teraflops
Apr 6, 08:23 PM
Hi guys,
I realize that this is a Mac forum, so chances are good that everyone here is happy with their decision to switch from Windows to Mac. But since there's no sub-forum on a Windows forum called "I tried a Mac but didn't like it" I'll ask here. :)
As someone that has used Windows since before Windows (DOS) and has never used a Mac, what might I NOT like about it?
What might be uncomfortable or difficult?
What major learning curves should I expect? Etc., etc...
I'm sure you get what I'm asking here ;) so please share whatever info you can.
Thanks in advance!
Also, remember you asked what you might not like, not what you would like. Other forum members have included some pluses about OS X, but you are headed in the right direction if you went to an Apple store and spent time with a Mac. Keep us posted "JOE" LOL Sorry, I could not resist. :)
I realize that this is a Mac forum, so chances are good that everyone here is happy with their decision to switch from Windows to Mac. But since there's no sub-forum on a Windows forum called "I tried a Mac but didn't like it" I'll ask here. :)
As someone that has used Windows since before Windows (DOS) and has never used a Mac, what might I NOT like about it?
What might be uncomfortable or difficult?
What major learning curves should I expect? Etc., etc...
I'm sure you get what I'm asking here ;) so please share whatever info you can.
Thanks in advance!
Also, remember you asked what you might not like, not what you would like. Other forum members have included some pluses about OS X, but you are headed in the right direction if you went to an Apple store and spent time with a Mac. Keep us posted "JOE" LOL Sorry, I could not resist. :)
leekohler
Apr 24, 11:55 AM
It's about power and control- nothing more.