You have to adapt all of your stuff to whatever limitations Apple has laid out.
You seem to be suggesting that these limitations are capricious. But these devices don't have the CPU to decode modern video codecs in software. These limitations are well-documented, and dictated by hardware decoding capabilities.
you may use 'any application that pleases you' to play music and video, a clear edge over Apple's limitation to iTunes.
This is a very confusing -- and probably confused -- statement.
iPad can play back content with its iPod functionality. Which isn't "iTunes" in any meaningful sense. (It also includes an iTunes store interface.)
Content can be loaded onto the device only with the iTunes Mac or PC application, but there are many ways to add content to your local iTunes app other than the iTunes store. For example, ripped CDs, Amazon MP3s, "Digital Copies" included with many Blu-ray discs, anything you encode yourself with compatible codecs and parameters (e.g. DVDs ripped and encoded to M4V with Handbrake).
Most people will say that this is completely legal
Congress says it's illegal. The courts agree with them. What most people say is utterly immaterial.
If you want high-def movies on your home server, buy the Blu-ray disc and a Blu-ray player, and rip the movie to your server.
Do you know the ins and outs of HDCP in this senario? I don't. How about circumventing AACS, BD+, and BD-Mark, whatever that is?! All problems I don't have to face if I choose not to be a customer.
But, even assuming I can circumvent all of the DRM, I can pay to get the movie to my hard drive. Or not. I break the law either way. There may be rational reasons to buy the disc, but the adversarial relationship the movie studios have cultivated with their customers (and potential customers, and ex-customers) doesn't seem to encourage people to do the "right" thing.
For the record, I own over 60 Blu-ray discs, because I enjoy the picture quality more than I enjoy having them on a hard drive.
I object to enslavement. I also object to my government counting some people as fractional persons.
I think it's sad that we compromised on a question which only had one defensible position. I don't think that implies a lack of understanding of the circumstances. Furthermore, I don't believe for a moment that I could have done something better in the same circumstances, but that doesn't make it less sad.
The original reason to collect race information was the 3/5ths clause of the Constitution. Amazing and sad that we still haven't gotten entirely past that.
The Mail app displays a numeric badge and plays a sound (a feature available to all 3rd party apps using the notification API).
I don't think this is strictly true. I believe that the Mail app is running, and is able to set its badge unilaterally. The 3rd party notification API requires some application NOT running on the phone to notify Apple to send a message to the phone to set the badge on the app, which isn't running. The effect for the end user is largely the same, but the mechanism is radically different.
Store all the files on the offendor's computer. Let the other designers work off of his computer. Done!
But seriously, why should anyone be able to access anyone else's files? Secure everyone's computer. You should put shared files on a shared file server.
I'm inclined to show up, very drunk, and make a scene. Certainly calling the deceased "my abuser". Probably inexplicably accusing the mourners of being "hypocrites" and/or "phonies". Possibly culminating in me falling into the grave and freaking out.
I prefer the term "decriminalize" to "legalize" in this context. "Legalize" seems to suggest that something is naturally or inherently illegal, and that some special, unnatural action is being suggested to make it legal. This also ties to the sense many people seem to have that if the government "legalizes" something it is also legitimizing it.
I think that "decriminalize" cuts to the heart of the matter. Today, selling, or buying, or consuming, (or possessing!) some particular thing might be a crime. We have but to stop making that victimless behavior a crime.
You seem to have given this topic a great deal of thought. Is there a reason you prefer "legalize"?
Ah, the difficulties of textual communication. I was being perfectly sincere. I genuinely appreciate your correction, and am especially grateful for your persistance when I didn't accept it the first time. Of course, I checked your assertion and found it to be absolutely correct.
You might recall that this began with me calling out another on his ignorance. Sauce for the goose . . .
I didn't really follow what you were saying. Could you walk me through it?
For reference, homeopathy came into existence, under the name homeopathy, in Germany in 1796. (Hahnemann's research began earlier in the same decade.) It did not exist in any meaningful way before that time under any name. It does not have roots in any of the myriad forms of traditional medicine.
Many homeopaths "prescribe" non-homeopathic herbal treatments (of varying efficacy), which creates a great deal of confusion as to the nature of homeopathy. Without exception, true homeopathic treatments are devoid of active ingredients. This is in stark contrast to most forms of traditional medicine, which use herbs and other treatments which often have some sort of pharmacological traits.
Herbal medicine (a.k.a. naturopathy ) is BY NO MEANS the same thing as homeopathy. You should really educate yourself before you start correcting people.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be suggesting that these limitations are capricious. But these devices don't have the CPU to decode modern video codecs in software. These limitations are well-documented, and dictated by hardware decoding capabilities.
What exactly is being swept under the rug?
-Peter
iTunes doesn't play anything on the iPad, which is exactly my point.
-Peter
This is a very confusing -- and probably confused -- statement.
iPad can play back content with its iPod functionality. Which isn't "iTunes" in any meaningful sense. (It also includes an iTunes store interface.)
Content can be loaded onto the device only with the iTunes Mac or PC application, but there are many ways to add content to your local iTunes app other than the iTunes store. For example, ripped CDs, Amazon MP3s, "Digital Copies" included with many Blu-ray discs, anything you encode yourself with compatible codecs and parameters (e.g. DVDs ripped and encoded to M4V with Handbrake).
-Peter
According to the video, it's 3.6kg without any foam or lining. Ooph. By modern standards, 2kg is very heavy.
And that's not even getting into the performance problems it would have in an impact.
-Peter
Congress says it's illegal. The courts agree with them. What most people say is utterly immaterial.
Do you know the ins and outs of HDCP in this senario? I don't. How about circumventing AACS, BD+, and BD-Mark, whatever that is?! All problems I don't have to face if I choose not to be a customer.
But, even assuming I can circumvent all of the DRM, I can pay to get the movie to my hard drive. Or not. I break the law either way. There may be rational reasons to buy the disc, but the adversarial relationship the movie studios have cultivated with their customers (and potential customers, and ex-customers) doesn't seem to encourage people to do the "right" thing.
For the record, I own over 60 Blu-ray discs, because I enjoy the picture quality more than I enjoy having them on a hard drive.
-Peter
Mmmm. I'm not sold.
-Peter
In case you have sigs turned off: Let's have a voluntary moratorium on "fixed that for ya" replies. They have long since ceased to be witty.
-Peter
What part don't I get?
I object to enslavement. I also object to my government counting some people as fractional persons.
I think it's sad that we compromised on a question which only had one defensible position. I don't think that implies a lack of understanding of the circumstances. Furthermore, I don't believe for a moment that I could have done something better in the same circumstances, but that doesn't make it less sad.
-Peter
I looked it up. You are correct, sir.
-Peter
The original reason to collect race information was the 3/5ths clause of the Constitution. Amazing and sad that we still haven't gotten entirely past that.
-Peter
Yeah. Wow. I never dreamed that anyone would find that obscure. For example.
-Peter
I did, but I had the sound off. Did he say something about that?
-Peter
Using Photoshop to remove lens flares? Oh! Brave new world!
-Peter
Meaningless, it's an AP story. Would you feel better reading it on The Stamford Advocate? Or the San Jose Mercury News?
I'd also like to point out that a knee-jerk accusation of bias sounds and awful lot like . . . bias.
-Peter
I just did a quick mental cross-reference, and I'm pretty sure this kid is destined to be a member of Congress.
-Peter
I don't think this is strictly true. I believe that the Mail app is running, and is able to set its badge unilaterally. The 3rd party notification API requires some application NOT running on the phone to notify Apple to send a message to the phone to set the badge on the app, which isn't running. The effect for the end user is largely the same, but the mechanism is radically different.
-Peter
Store all the files on the offendor's computer. Let the other designers work off of his computer. Done!
But seriously, why should anyone be able to access anyone else's files? Secure everyone's computer. You should put shared files on a shared file server.
And why not use revision control?
-Peter
I'm inclined to show up, very drunk, and make a scene. Certainly calling the deceased "my abuser". Probably inexplicably accusing the mourners of being "hypocrites" and/or "phonies". Possibly culminating in me falling into the grave and freaking out.
-Peter
I prefer the term "decriminalize" to "legalize" in this context. "Legalize" seems to suggest that something is naturally or inherently illegal, and that some special, unnatural action is being suggested to make it legal. This also ties to the sense many people seem to have that if the government "legalizes" something it is also legitimizing it.
I think that "decriminalize" cuts to the heart of the matter. Today, selling, or buying, or consuming, (or possessing!) some particular thing might be a crime. We have but to stop making that victimless behavior a crime.
You seem to have given this topic a great deal of thought. Is there a reason you prefer "legalize"?
-Peter
Ah, the difficulties of textual communication. I was being perfectly sincere. I genuinely appreciate your correction, and am especially grateful for your persistance when I didn't accept it the first time. Of course, I checked your assertion and found it to be absolutely correct.
You might recall that this began with me calling out another on his ignorance. Sauce for the goose . . .
-Peter
Fascinating! Thanks for persisting in your correction!
-Peter
I didn't really follow what you were saying. Could you walk me through it?
For reference, homeopathy came into existence, under the name homeopathy, in Germany in 1796. (Hahnemann's research began earlier in the same decade.) It did not exist in any meaningful way before that time under any name. It does not have roots in any of the myriad forms of traditional medicine.
Many homeopaths "prescribe" non-homeopathic herbal treatments (of varying efficacy), which creates a great deal of confusion as to the nature of homeopathy. Without exception, true homeopathic treatments are devoid of active ingredients. This is in stark contrast to most forms of traditional medicine, which use herbs and other treatments which often have some sort of pharmacological traits.
-Peter
Totally fair. I think it's also fair to say that herbal medicine is a subset or aspect of naturopathy.
Thanks for the clarification!
-Peter
From the fine article:
"Either we are governed by evidence and science, or by Prince Charles." --Edzard Ernst
Awesome.
-Peter
Herbal medicine (a.k.a. naturopathy ) is BY NO MEANS the same thing as homeopathy. You should really educate yourself before you start correcting people.
-Peter