ct2k7
Apr 23, 07:59 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
Who is this "untoward person"?
What would the "issue" be?
e.g. paedophile. Issue is rather obvious.
Who is this "untoward person"?
What would the "issue" be?
e.g. paedophile. Issue is rather obvious.
steelfist
Nov 19, 05:57 AM
it would mean backstabbing and betrayal if apple went with amd.
tremendous
Oct 8, 08:28 AM
i say ban them from life
nothin' but the chair for these practical jokers.
nothin' but the chair for these practical jokers.
raleigh1208
Nov 25, 02:10 AM
Discounts no longer show up, so the sale is over. Hope everyone got a bargain. I didn't really see very many serious bargains. I bought the Airport Express for $88. But the main deals were not that great. They may have tempted some folks walking in the stores to buy a Macbook or ipod, or tempted those already waiting for those items. After paying sales tax, the discount was not that great, and serious bargain hunters could probably have done better at other resellers. But a buck's a buck, so here's to those who bought today and saved a few bucks!
macman2790
Nov 16, 01:14 PM
who wants to run amd anyway?
gamers that want to switch to mac but wont because of intel, which is stupid. AMD fanboys hate intel also(there is a signifigant amount of these people). They still haven't realised that intel has taken the lead again.
gamers that want to switch to mac but wont because of intel, which is stupid. AMD fanboys hate intel also(there is a signifigant amount of these people). They still haven't realised that intel has taken the lead again.
TheMonarch
Sep 7, 10:14 PM
Maroon 5 sucks, though. Its so boring. Not on the same level as Keane, but still quite a snoozer.
Funny thing is that Kanye is a Maroon 5 fan, and has the lead singer from Maroon 5 on the 2nd track of his new album, Late Registration. Good song, too. :)
I think maroon 5 is OK, not the best, but good.
SO he's a big fan of them, but bitc*es about them when they beat him. Damn. Now I really don't like him. childish of him.
Funny thing is that Kanye is a Maroon 5 fan, and has the lead singer from Maroon 5 on the 2nd track of his new album, Late Registration. Good song, too. :)
I think maroon 5 is OK, not the best, but good.
SO he's a big fan of them, but bitc*es about them when they beat him. Damn. Now I really don't like him. childish of him.
killuminati
Sep 7, 08:19 PM
are you kidding me? So you're saying that it was just a publicity stunt? Just cuz kanye's black? :(
Anthony T
Apr 16, 08:52 AM
I don't see how the writing on the iPhone is crooked or whatever, maybe I'm blind. The photo looks real. But I hope it's not, and if it is real, I hope that's just a prototype, because I don't like the square shape and the angular edges on the back.
longofest
Oct 17, 09:06 AM
I'd rather see Blu Ray win this. It's clearly the better product on paper.
However, as history shows us, this doesn't mean it will win :(
Apple supporting both? I think it's a good option to give the customers - it's us who'll decide... But a hybrid drive will be the best bet.
Bluray is clearly better, and TDK (I think) is definitely doing an incredible job of pushing disk capacities through the 200 GB roof (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/04/28/tdk_200gb_blu-ray_disc/) (with multiple layers, and increasing the single-layer capacity to 33 GB). But I heard in this forum that the content creators are still using MPEG-2, which while H.264 and WM9 is fully supported in both Bluray and HD-DVD, only HD-DVD is using the advanced codecs. So, the end result is the studios aren't using Bluray to its full capacity.
If true, I'd like to see studios stop being stupid and start using the better technology. But another BIG problem I see with bluray right now is that it is so darn expensive. There is a 2:1, and sometimes a 3:1 price difference between them and HD-DVD. I don't have over a grand to spend on a Bluray player, and I don't want to wait a decade to get one either...
No they won't.
If (I said IF) everyone can end up buying a player that plays both formats, why would they have to release both formats?
Maybe all Sony movies are on Blu-Ray and all Warner Brother's movies are on HDVD. Everyone can buy either and play them in their dual-player.
That's it. Easy.
I have lots of doubts that it will work out this way, but hey...that WOULD be best, wouldn't it?
Warner looks like they will put movies out on the hybrid disks, so if you have a blu-ray player, you can play it, and if you have an HD-DVD player you can play it. Same end game. The problem comes when you have a studio like Universal that only puts out stuff on HD-DVD or Fox that just puts out on Blu-ray. Then you need the universal player.
NEC has developed a chip that can decode both, as you have hinted at. The optical technology is coming along (I saw something on Digg a little bit ago that noted some progress in that arena), but still not there yet.
However, as history shows us, this doesn't mean it will win :(
Apple supporting both? I think it's a good option to give the customers - it's us who'll decide... But a hybrid drive will be the best bet.
Bluray is clearly better, and TDK (I think) is definitely doing an incredible job of pushing disk capacities through the 200 GB roof (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/04/28/tdk_200gb_blu-ray_disc/) (with multiple layers, and increasing the single-layer capacity to 33 GB). But I heard in this forum that the content creators are still using MPEG-2, which while H.264 and WM9 is fully supported in both Bluray and HD-DVD, only HD-DVD is using the advanced codecs. So, the end result is the studios aren't using Bluray to its full capacity.
If true, I'd like to see studios stop being stupid and start using the better technology. But another BIG problem I see with bluray right now is that it is so darn expensive. There is a 2:1, and sometimes a 3:1 price difference between them and HD-DVD. I don't have over a grand to spend on a Bluray player, and I don't want to wait a decade to get one either...
No they won't.
If (I said IF) everyone can end up buying a player that plays both formats, why would they have to release both formats?
Maybe all Sony movies are on Blu-Ray and all Warner Brother's movies are on HDVD. Everyone can buy either and play them in their dual-player.
That's it. Easy.
I have lots of doubts that it will work out this way, but hey...that WOULD be best, wouldn't it?
Warner looks like they will put movies out on the hybrid disks, so if you have a blu-ray player, you can play it, and if you have an HD-DVD player you can play it. Same end game. The problem comes when you have a studio like Universal that only puts out stuff on HD-DVD or Fox that just puts out on Blu-ray. Then you need the universal player.
NEC has developed a chip that can decode both, as you have hinted at. The optical technology is coming along (I saw something on Digg a little bit ago that noted some progress in that arena), but still not there yet.
wordoflife
Mar 19, 05:29 PM
Here in England thats a pretty common figure of speech that people use all the time. It doesn't mean literally ages. I forgot this was an American forum, but what does that have to do with anything anyway?
I'm from the US and I even understood what you were saying. It's just figurative language. It looks like people just want something to rant on you about.
I'm from the US and I even understood what you were saying. It's just figurative language. It looks like people just want something to rant on you about.
Mitthrawnuruodo
Aug 2, 05:21 AM
Oh I don't know, just about everything? It is this insecurity thing again isn't it? Insecurity...? The only thing I'm insecure about at the moment is whether you are for real or just trolling... :confused:
The fewer the people in a nation, the easier it is to say they are the best or the worst in certain things. Get it?Who says we're best at anything. It's not a contest... :rolleyes:
Up here in the Nordic countries we're a small, fairly uniform, very rich, well-educated (to a degree - pun intended), technological advanced population. The marked might be small, but it's still a nice little marked.
Do you honestly see Apple pull out of a similar marked, let say New Your city, just because an unresolved quarrel with the local government...?
The fewer the people in a nation, the easier it is to say they are the best or the worst in certain things. Get it?Who says we're best at anything. It's not a contest... :rolleyes:
Up here in the Nordic countries we're a small, fairly uniform, very rich, well-educated (to a degree - pun intended), technological advanced population. The marked might be small, but it's still a nice little marked.
Do you honestly see Apple pull out of a similar marked, let say New Your city, just because an unresolved quarrel with the local government...?
Rodimus Prime
Apr 22, 06:57 PM
Whereas I agree with your post entirely, I get the feeling that you wouldn't be saying this if Apple were the only ones not to collect such data. You have bashed Google many times for the amount of data it collects, but as soon as Apple is to be seen to be doing it, it's all cool. A "non-issue.":rolleyes:
some how I think the only reason he is saying that is because Apple is the one doing it.
If it was anyone else LTD would be bashing it like no tomorrow.
My issue with it is the fact that it does not let you opt out. It would be one thing to freely give away that infomation. It is another not to be even given the option to opt out. On top of that the way Apple is doing it is even worse.
Google and Apple are in the wrong I feel. I just feel Apple is even more wrong than Google. Google at least only stores the last 50 cell towers and 200 wifi compared to Apple which keeps all of it locally.
some how I think the only reason he is saying that is because Apple is the one doing it.
If it was anyone else LTD would be bashing it like no tomorrow.
My issue with it is the fact that it does not let you opt out. It would be one thing to freely give away that infomation. It is another not to be even given the option to opt out. On top of that the way Apple is doing it is even worse.
Google and Apple are in the wrong I feel. I just feel Apple is even more wrong than Google. Google at least only stores the last 50 cell towers and 200 wifi compared to Apple which keeps all of it locally.
dgree03
May 3, 04:00 PM
They are offering you more bandwidth to use a higher bandwidth service like tethering.
The consideration is very clear. Thanks for quoting the premise for contract law, but claiming there is no consideration there is ridiculous.
People who tether use more bandwidth, so the cost associated with their usage is more expensive. The carriers can either charge those people for tethering or they can raise the price for EVERYONE.
They choose to charge the people who tether. It is a perfectly reasonable choice on their part.
Hey a cable line comes into my house with all the channels on it. I can just jimmy off a filter and get all the channels without paying any more. They are already delivering it to my house, why can't I just get all of them since they are there anyways and I am paying for cable right?
You are not paying for tethering unless you are paying for tethering. The math is simple. People who tether use more bandwidth. Wireless providers set their data prices based on AVERAGE usage. Tethering makes the average usage go up, so the revenue to cover those costs has to come from somewhere.
So they can either charge EVERYONE more or charge the people who tether more.. Again they choose the later.
Are you seriously defending charging for tethering!? What do you mean MORE bandwidth?
I am paying for a 25 dollar 2gb plan for my phone. 2gb, is 2gb, is 2gb. If I tether it DOES NOT MATTER MY BANDWIDTH, once i use up 2gb i pay overages. It is that simple... I dont have to tether to use 2gb.
Your cable example is weak. On cable you are paying for the content on that line. On your data plan there is no content to pay for.. it is just straight internet.
A better cable example would be a cable company charging you monthly to extend your cable to each seperate room.
The consideration is very clear. Thanks for quoting the premise for contract law, but claiming there is no consideration there is ridiculous.
People who tether use more bandwidth, so the cost associated with their usage is more expensive. The carriers can either charge those people for tethering or they can raise the price for EVERYONE.
They choose to charge the people who tether. It is a perfectly reasonable choice on their part.
Hey a cable line comes into my house with all the channels on it. I can just jimmy off a filter and get all the channels without paying any more. They are already delivering it to my house, why can't I just get all of them since they are there anyways and I am paying for cable right?
You are not paying for tethering unless you are paying for tethering. The math is simple. People who tether use more bandwidth. Wireless providers set their data prices based on AVERAGE usage. Tethering makes the average usage go up, so the revenue to cover those costs has to come from somewhere.
So they can either charge EVERYONE more or charge the people who tether more.. Again they choose the later.
Are you seriously defending charging for tethering!? What do you mean MORE bandwidth?
I am paying for a 25 dollar 2gb plan for my phone. 2gb, is 2gb, is 2gb. If I tether it DOES NOT MATTER MY BANDWIDTH, once i use up 2gb i pay overages. It is that simple... I dont have to tether to use 2gb.
Your cable example is weak. On cable you are paying for the content on that line. On your data plan there is no content to pay for.. it is just straight internet.
A better cable example would be a cable company charging you monthly to extend your cable to each seperate room.
GFLPraxis
Apr 15, 02:02 PM
The OP was ambiguous ... I read it that the weapons used on 9/11 were still not banned. As opposed to not banned at the time.
Hasn't anyone noticed that not a single US plane has been hijacked in the past 10 years? A quick look at Wikipedia shows 7 US planes hijacked in the 1970s, several in the 80s and 90s. Four planes were hijacked in 2001 (all on the same day....) - and then not a single US, European, Japanese plane has been hijacked.
Something is working.....
1980s - Aer Ligus Dublin - London; Air France Frankfurt - Paris; Rio Airways Killen, Texas - Dallas, Texas; TWA Athens - Beirut; Egypt Air Athens - Cairo; Malev Hungarian Airlines Prague - ?? ;
1990s - Lufthansa Frankfort - Cairo; FedEx flight Memphis - ??; Air Malta Malta - Turkey; All Nippon (domestic flight);
I've only listed those flights that departed from a European (and one Japanese) airport.... not European airlines that departed from non-European airports. After 9/11 there were still a number of hijackings, but the closest they come to European departure points are Nicosia, and Tirana. Though there was one from a Mexican Airport and one from a Caribbean airport. The Mexican hijacking was by a man threatening a bomb, but I don't think they actually found one.
I'll grant you the eighties. Now we get in to the ninties and there's...one in the United States, and it's an employee hijacking a company plane (FedEx).
So what's the correlation you're going for here? I'm not seeing it.
I see a decline from the 70's to the 80's, but the 90's seems in line with 2K.
We go ten years without a single commercial U.S. flight getting hijacked. Then 9/11. Then ten more years without. I'm not seeing some amazing statistical shift as a result of TSA. Further, I'm not seeing anything that justifies the new full body scanners. These were added without any supporting reasons.
If your argument is that security changes post 9/11 have made things better than the previous decade, I think showing it via statistics will be shaky at best. Zero passenger-carrying hijacks in the U.S. in the decade before 9/11 followed by zero passenger-carrying hijacks in the U.S. in the decade after 9/11 is not a statistic you can make a very solid conclusion off of.
And if your argument is that last year's full body scanners are justified, I would request much more evidence.
And how may people have the TSA found?
You tell me.
And how many people have not even bothered to try, because they were afraid of getting caught?
Same number as in the 90's.
Hasn't anyone noticed that not a single US plane has been hijacked in the past 10 years? A quick look at Wikipedia shows 7 US planes hijacked in the 1970s, several in the 80s and 90s. Four planes were hijacked in 2001 (all on the same day....) - and then not a single US, European, Japanese plane has been hijacked.
Something is working.....
1980s - Aer Ligus Dublin - London; Air France Frankfurt - Paris; Rio Airways Killen, Texas - Dallas, Texas; TWA Athens - Beirut; Egypt Air Athens - Cairo; Malev Hungarian Airlines Prague - ?? ;
1990s - Lufthansa Frankfort - Cairo; FedEx flight Memphis - ??; Air Malta Malta - Turkey; All Nippon (domestic flight);
I've only listed those flights that departed from a European (and one Japanese) airport.... not European airlines that departed from non-European airports. After 9/11 there were still a number of hijackings, but the closest they come to European departure points are Nicosia, and Tirana. Though there was one from a Mexican Airport and one from a Caribbean airport. The Mexican hijacking was by a man threatening a bomb, but I don't think they actually found one.
I'll grant you the eighties. Now we get in to the ninties and there's...one in the United States, and it's an employee hijacking a company plane (FedEx).
So what's the correlation you're going for here? I'm not seeing it.
I see a decline from the 70's to the 80's, but the 90's seems in line with 2K.
We go ten years without a single commercial U.S. flight getting hijacked. Then 9/11. Then ten more years without. I'm not seeing some amazing statistical shift as a result of TSA. Further, I'm not seeing anything that justifies the new full body scanners. These were added without any supporting reasons.
If your argument is that security changes post 9/11 have made things better than the previous decade, I think showing it via statistics will be shaky at best. Zero passenger-carrying hijacks in the U.S. in the decade before 9/11 followed by zero passenger-carrying hijacks in the U.S. in the decade after 9/11 is not a statistic you can make a very solid conclusion off of.
And if your argument is that last year's full body scanners are justified, I would request much more evidence.
And how may people have the TSA found?
You tell me.
And how many people have not even bothered to try, because they were afraid of getting caught?
Same number as in the 90's.
AlBDamned
Nov 10, 03:50 AM
I got my copy at about 10am on release day here in Aus, and have had about 3 hours so far - 50/50 on campaign/multiplayer.
It pains me to say it, but so far it's pretty disappointing. I bought it mainly for the multiplayer. MW2 had it flaws - nukes, quickscoping, matchmaking - but what it had nailed was the graphical polish, sound, movement and overall look and feel.
BlackOps feels like a trip back in time. It's jerky, the guns all sound the same, the explosions are muted, the kill streaks are really pretty weak, and the graphics are pretty appalling for a 'state-of-the-art' 2010 PS3 game. Also, the RC-XD is all over the place in multiplayer, and it's seriously annoying (but everybody uses them).
I want to love it, but so far it's been a pretty negative experience for me. Will keep at it for a while, but at this stage it feels like MW2 is a much more polished game overall.
It pains me to say it, but so far it's pretty disappointing. I bought it mainly for the multiplayer. MW2 had it flaws - nukes, quickscoping, matchmaking - but what it had nailed was the graphical polish, sound, movement and overall look and feel.
BlackOps feels like a trip back in time. It's jerky, the guns all sound the same, the explosions are muted, the kill streaks are really pretty weak, and the graphics are pretty appalling for a 'state-of-the-art' 2010 PS3 game. Also, the RC-XD is all over the place in multiplayer, and it's seriously annoying (but everybody uses them).
I want to love it, but so far it's been a pretty negative experience for me. Will keep at it for a while, but at this stage it feels like MW2 is a much more polished game overall.
Lynxpoint
Mar 24, 08:50 PM
Happy Birthday.
It is so true how OS X was a major turning point for Apple. One of the things that I always thought set Apple apart was their willingness to drastically alter course when needed. I remember the System 7, 8, 9 days well. I liked working on Macs, but at the time Windows NT was a more robust beast. When a suitcase can crash your machine, you know something is wrong. So along came OS X, and it surpassed MS for many years. For MS today, I can not comment. For from 10.4 on I abandoned all MS gear, and I still refuse to work with it. Thats not because XP was bad. It was quite strong. But where MS failed was in the shell - the user experience ( I ran custom shells on XP). And where Apple excelled was in this area. The stability of UNIX with a good user interface (not perfect, no RDF here) made digital work good.
I wonder what the future will bring. I hope for some real evolution in computing. iOS has given us some of that. I just hope that our 'trucks' don't get treated like real trucks, with little change over the years because they do their utilitarian tasks just fine.
It is so true how OS X was a major turning point for Apple. One of the things that I always thought set Apple apart was their willingness to drastically alter course when needed. I remember the System 7, 8, 9 days well. I liked working on Macs, but at the time Windows NT was a more robust beast. When a suitcase can crash your machine, you know something is wrong. So along came OS X, and it surpassed MS for many years. For MS today, I can not comment. For from 10.4 on I abandoned all MS gear, and I still refuse to work with it. Thats not because XP was bad. It was quite strong. But where MS failed was in the shell - the user experience ( I ran custom shells on XP). And where Apple excelled was in this area. The stability of UNIX with a good user interface (not perfect, no RDF here) made digital work good.
I wonder what the future will bring. I hope for some real evolution in computing. iOS has given us some of that. I just hope that our 'trucks' don't get treated like real trucks, with little change over the years because they do their utilitarian tasks just fine.
bpfesq
Dec 13, 10:21 AM
I just don't see Apple creating a situation where they're going to have 2 separate refresh dates for the iPhone. Whatever they do, they're going to make it so they refresh ALL of their iPhones around June of every year. Otherwise they're going to put one of the carriers at a distinct disadvantage because Verizon will have the latest technology for up to 6 months before it goes to ATT--which will hurt apple sales overall.
ipacmm
Aug 7, 06:31 PM
Be careful when buying at an Apple Store that they don't pawn off on you the previous generation model. I was told by an employee that they were the same except for the price. If your not careful they may try to sell their existing stock at the reduced price. Buy online for now. I can't see a way to tell which model is current and which is prior, except for the obvious brightness.
The cinema display's didn't change, all that changed was the price. So there isn't any "previous generation model" from what I understand.
The cinema display's didn't change, all that changed was the price. So there isn't any "previous generation model" from what I understand.
Rocketman
Dec 13, 10:38 AM
I really hope LTE is on all handsets going forward whether fully deployed or not. It will be deployed. While I am wishing for unicorns here, I also wish both AT&T and Verizon would let the other carriers customers roam on their LTE network, possibly for a monthly fee or a bucket of GB fee. Let's pay them what they are due, but let's have consumer convenience as the primary goal for a change.
BTW the reason the rumor is wrong is it says LTE only. In reality it will be data only, no voice specific transceiver. All ops will be by IP including VoIP for voice. It will still be able to drop from 4G to 3G level service to assure access.
Rocketman
BTW the reason the rumor is wrong is it says LTE only. In reality it will be data only, no voice specific transceiver. All ops will be by IP including VoIP for voice. It will still be able to drop from 4G to 3G level service to assure access.
Rocketman
Lacero
Sep 8, 10:11 AM
And apparently a complete moron when it comes to politics.He'll be in good company.
Europe calling
Jan 15, 02:12 PM
The only thing i am dying for at this moment is to get the bugs out of Leopard 10.5.1.
I had really hoped today would be that day.
A real dissapointment! :(
I had really hoped today would be that day.
A real dissapointment! :(
lena
Nov 24, 03:35 PM
For those of us ordering online, if you go through fatwallet.com, you can get a 2% cash rebate - every penny counts!
miles01110
Sep 12, 08:32 AM
http://www.apple.com/de/quicktime/win.html
bottom left of page
Ooh....nice find, the movies shown there are terrible though :-)
bottom left of page
Ooh....nice find, the movies shown there are terrible though :-)
Highland
Aug 2, 08:04 PM
Stop being such asses and realise that proprietary DRM on music, video, pictures or digital books is a really, really, ridiculously stupid thing for consumers and society. I'd rather have no DRM, but if we have to, let's make it something that everyone can use.
Also... this isn't being driven entirely by Apple. The content owners are as much, if not more to blame. We all need to start speaking up about this or we're going to REALLY regret it in a few year's time.That's just wrong on so many levels. I wish I had more time...
I dare you to try and argue against those points. Trust me, I've spent long enough in the music industry and observed all the DRM and copy protection stuff that's been happening since... well... a very long time (since DAT days etc).
#1 "proprietary DRM on music, video, pictures or digital books is a really, really, ridiculously stupid thing" -- So you don't want to have free interchange on products you own with content you've bought a license to play? I'm not saying we have a legal right to play the content where we like, I'm saying we SHOULD.
#2 "I'd rather have no DRM, but if we have to, let's make it something that everyone can use." -- I think it'd be much better to have one DRM model for all. The idea of heaps of different online stores all selling music that only works with one or two devices is just insane. And if you think that wouldn't work because it'd be cracked... well, every DRM model can and will be cracked in time. They all suffer that flaw.
#3 "Also... this isn't being driven entirely by Apple. The content owners are as much, if not more to blame." -- The DRM is there because labels want it, not because Apple does. Period. Don't even bother arguing about that one.
#4 "We all need to start speaking up about this or we're going to REALLY regret it in a few year's time." -- CDs won't be around forever. So what are we going to do when DRMed files are the ONLY choice? That's not an option I like to think about. We need to fight this right now or be in a whole lot of trouble.
Honestly, there's really not really a sane way to argue that proprietary DRM is good for consumers. There's quite a few ways to argue that it's morally not a good thing for society. There's also a few ways to argue that it breaches fair trading practices.
Also... this isn't being driven entirely by Apple. The content owners are as much, if not more to blame. We all need to start speaking up about this or we're going to REALLY regret it in a few year's time.That's just wrong on so many levels. I wish I had more time...
I dare you to try and argue against those points. Trust me, I've spent long enough in the music industry and observed all the DRM and copy protection stuff that's been happening since... well... a very long time (since DAT days etc).
#1 "proprietary DRM on music, video, pictures or digital books is a really, really, ridiculously stupid thing" -- So you don't want to have free interchange on products you own with content you've bought a license to play? I'm not saying we have a legal right to play the content where we like, I'm saying we SHOULD.
#2 "I'd rather have no DRM, but if we have to, let's make it something that everyone can use." -- I think it'd be much better to have one DRM model for all. The idea of heaps of different online stores all selling music that only works with one or two devices is just insane. And if you think that wouldn't work because it'd be cracked... well, every DRM model can and will be cracked in time. They all suffer that flaw.
#3 "Also... this isn't being driven entirely by Apple. The content owners are as much, if not more to blame." -- The DRM is there because labels want it, not because Apple does. Period. Don't even bother arguing about that one.
#4 "We all need to start speaking up about this or we're going to REALLY regret it in a few year's time." -- CDs won't be around forever. So what are we going to do when DRMed files are the ONLY choice? That's not an option I like to think about. We need to fight this right now or be in a whole lot of trouble.
Honestly, there's really not really a sane way to argue that proprietary DRM is good for consumers. There's quite a few ways to argue that it's morally not a good thing for society. There's also a few ways to argue that it breaches fair trading practices.
No comments:
Post a Comment