iMikeT
Aug 29, 11:04 AM
It's a tough one. I'd like to think that we could vote with our wallets over something like this, but unfortunately I need a computer, and there's no way I'm not using OSX.
I'd like to think we could still complain about it, but "Apple's annual shareholder meetings have seen frequent protests from environmental groups" makes me think that they don't really give a toss, which is bad, mmkay.
I don't really see why if Dell can do it, Apple can't.
Did I read that correctly?
I'd like to think we could still complain about it, but "Apple's annual shareholder meetings have seen frequent protests from environmental groups" makes me think that they don't really give a toss, which is bad, mmkay.
I don't really see why if Dell can do it, Apple can't.
Did I read that correctly?
CaoCao
Mar 25, 09:59 AM
Subtract the individuals affiliated with gangs and the mentally unstable and we're staring at a long list of homosexuals murdered by "mainstream" individuals, many of whom attended church on a regular basis and were in fact catholic. That their religious affiliations are not immediately telegraphed is not evidence of absence, but rather of the fact that 76% of the population self-identifies as Christian.
Aren't we having a thread about religion dying?
Don't forget to subtract the victims who we aren't sure about them being killed because they were homosexual.
So, how many can you prove were Catholic, mentally stable and not in gangs?
People can BELIEVE whatever they want.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
"so frequently" ORLY? Prove it. To prove that the Catholic Church restricts rights you have to prove that the rights existed before.
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
To stretch my own analogy, it also ignores that the men who put on white hoods and terrorized black people were not "mainstream" white people either, but they were nevertheless acting on the attitudes held by "mainstream" white people. They were radical, but saw themselves as the ones with the strength of will to enforce the true will of the "mainstream." It's all very well to believe that the darkies should keep their place, but somebody's got to do the work of keeping them there when they step out of line.
However, I will return to what I touched on before: the Catholic Church (and Christian churches generally in the United States) currently have no need for terrorist thugs. They have great political influence and have convinced a significant plurality (seemingly no longer a majority, I am gratified to point out) that they are entitled to subjugate others bloodlessly and anonymously through the democratic process.
At least this is so until the courts clearly state once and for all that this is incompatible with our law and our society. Incidentally, that's also when the thugs will really come out, and you watch how many of them claim to be doing the Lord's work.
The Klan was basically an organization with the express purpose of keeping Negroes in line, can you prove an equivalent organization in the Catholic Church?
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
If we constantly expand the topic, none of what was previously said is relevant.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
You forgot the fact that many "Christians" in the US are fundamentalist nuts
Aren't we having a thread about religion dying?
Don't forget to subtract the victims who we aren't sure about them being killed because they were homosexual.
So, how many can you prove were Catholic, mentally stable and not in gangs?
People can BELIEVE whatever they want.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
"so frequently" ORLY? Prove it. To prove that the Catholic Church restricts rights you have to prove that the rights existed before.
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
To stretch my own analogy, it also ignores that the men who put on white hoods and terrorized black people were not "mainstream" white people either, but they were nevertheless acting on the attitudes held by "mainstream" white people. They were radical, but saw themselves as the ones with the strength of will to enforce the true will of the "mainstream." It's all very well to believe that the darkies should keep their place, but somebody's got to do the work of keeping them there when they step out of line.
However, I will return to what I touched on before: the Catholic Church (and Christian churches generally in the United States) currently have no need for terrorist thugs. They have great political influence and have convinced a significant plurality (seemingly no longer a majority, I am gratified to point out) that they are entitled to subjugate others bloodlessly and anonymously through the democratic process.
At least this is so until the courts clearly state once and for all that this is incompatible with our law and our society. Incidentally, that's also when the thugs will really come out, and you watch how many of them claim to be doing the Lord's work.
The Klan was basically an organization with the express purpose of keeping Negroes in line, can you prove an equivalent organization in the Catholic Church?
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
If we constantly expand the topic, none of what was previously said is relevant.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
You forgot the fact that many "Christians" in the US are fundamentalist nuts
Elfear
Nov 2, 01:08 AM
I have Maya Unlimited and I render (mental ray) to 6 cores (a quad and a dual). This works in Maya 7 and 8. It's a pain to setup, easy for 1 computer, a pain network setups.
Edit, it just so happens that I started hooking up my mental ray satellite as I wrote this post. As expected it was a pain so I had to contact Atuodesk to get help. I noticed that in the setup info it suggested Maya Unlimited 8 gives you 8 additional render licenses on top of the 4 that are standard. I asked the rep if that was correct and he said yes. So that's 12 all together. :D :D :D
How well does Maya scale when you use 2, 4, and 6 threads?
Edit, it just so happens that I started hooking up my mental ray satellite as I wrote this post. As expected it was a pain so I had to contact Atuodesk to get help. I noticed that in the setup info it suggested Maya Unlimited 8 gives you 8 additional render licenses on top of the 4 that are standard. I asked the rep if that was correct and he said yes. So that's 12 all together. :D :D :D
How well does Maya scale when you use 2, 4, and 6 threads?
alexf
Aug 29, 11:36 AM
My family, two parents and two kids, have purchased 6 ipods over the years.
Replaced batteries on two of them.
Never thrown any of them away.
Still use all of them. Why would anyone throw an out dated ipod away?
Try to think in the long term: where do you think these iPods will end up in 20 years? I highly doubt anyone will still be using an iPod they bought a quarter century ago.
I am afraid that, in that sense, iPods are very disposable.
Although the situation is becoming much more urgent with the rapic climate changes that are happening in the world faster than predicted, much of environmentalism is about thinking in the long term, and the environmental impact that company products and policy can have.
And in this regard, Apple indeed scores very low, which only goes to show that they are really no different than a typical corporation that cares far more about its immediate profit than the earth and its future generations.
Replaced batteries on two of them.
Never thrown any of them away.
Still use all of them. Why would anyone throw an out dated ipod away?
Try to think in the long term: where do you think these iPods will end up in 20 years? I highly doubt anyone will still be using an iPod they bought a quarter century ago.
I am afraid that, in that sense, iPods are very disposable.
Although the situation is becoming much more urgent with the rapic climate changes that are happening in the world faster than predicted, much of environmentalism is about thinking in the long term, and the environmental impact that company products and policy can have.
And in this regard, Apple indeed scores very low, which only goes to show that they are really no different than a typical corporation that cares far more about its immediate profit than the earth and its future generations.
puma1552
Mar 14, 01:04 AM
Yea, this is one of the few controversial posts I've made here, I expected some criticism, and likely deserve it as I definitely don't get the whole picture, then again who does.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 11:58 AM
Right, schools should teach you how to think. Besides, what a kid learns at age 7 will be somewhat obsolete by the time she enters the work force at 24, seventeen years later. For all we know, she could be given a Linux box at that time, or a Chrome PC, or a Mac, or something not even invented yet instead of a Windows box.
A lot can change in almost 20 years.
A lot can change in almost 20 years.
Peterkro
Mar 13, 04:45 PM
For energy wind is not considered a back bone power supply due to it not reliable enough. Solar can be consider good backbone due to it is reliable and we can store the heat energy to power us threw the night.
Wind would be fine as a back bone source if the geographical spread was big enough (it's always windy in one area or another) and in spite of people saying energy storage is a problem in fact it's not.(see for instance the Ffestiniog Power Station in north Wales which has been operating since the early sixties)(it can come online in 90 seconds if necessary)
Wind would be fine as a back bone source if the geographical spread was big enough (it's always windy in one area or another) and in spite of people saying energy storage is a problem in fact it's not.(see for instance the Ffestiniog Power Station in north Wales which has been operating since the early sixties)(it can come online in 90 seconds if necessary)
AppliedVisual
Oct 12, 11:11 AM
Did you just get the 2007 model? If so how do you like it? Can't you lobby sales to give you the credit? You bought while the coupon was in effect - just overlooked it. It's another $96 off man. Worth asking about. Get one first then call sales.
The one I ordered the other day shipped yesterday and I'm expecting delivery on monday. I requested the forum coupon and will see if they will credit me. But I don't know. i'm not planning on going through the brain damage of ordering another monitor with the coupon and sending one back just to save ~$100.
I currently have a 30" Dell that I bought last year when Dell first introduced them. I love the thing... My only gripe is 1 stuck pixel, but Dell requires like 7 or more to replace and I didn't swap the monitor within my 30-day window because the pixel didn't show up until after nearly 3 months. :(
I have an Apple 30" on my other G5 quad and I've never had the two side by side, but I think I like the Dell one better. I use a Gefen 4x1 DVI-DL switcher and have the G5 and two PC systems connected to the Dell with an extra cable for my MBP or whatnot if I want to connect that. I ordered the second 30" because I'm going to expand my desktop to dual 30" displays. :D I had to order another Gefen switcher for the second monitor too since the G5 and one of my PC boxes both support dual-link DVI out of both DVI ports as will the Mac Pro I'm planning to buy in the near future.
The one I ordered the other day shipped yesterday and I'm expecting delivery on monday. I requested the forum coupon and will see if they will credit me. But I don't know. i'm not planning on going through the brain damage of ordering another monitor with the coupon and sending one back just to save ~$100.
I currently have a 30" Dell that I bought last year when Dell first introduced them. I love the thing... My only gripe is 1 stuck pixel, but Dell requires like 7 or more to replace and I didn't swap the monitor within my 30-day window because the pixel didn't show up until after nearly 3 months. :(
I have an Apple 30" on my other G5 quad and I've never had the two side by side, but I think I like the Dell one better. I use a Gefen 4x1 DVI-DL switcher and have the G5 and two PC systems connected to the Dell with an extra cable for my MBP or whatnot if I want to connect that. I ordered the second 30" because I'm going to expand my desktop to dual 30" displays. :D I had to order another Gefen switcher for the second monitor too since the G5 and one of my PC boxes both support dual-link DVI out of both DVI ports as will the Mac Pro I'm planning to buy in the near future.
Gravity
May 6, 09:25 AM
I am in the chicagoland area and I have a high percentage of phone calls that AT&T drops!!! Seems like every other phone call... I probably have about 40% of all my calls dropped by AT&T. What good are full bars on my phone if the connection isn't reliable? If that's the case, WHY do I spend so much for phone service???
steebu
Oct 25, 10:24 PM
Do either IBM or Motorola have a quad-core chip on the horizon?
djgamble
Oct 7, 09:52 PM
Good luck to them then...
I predict Google will be bankrupt by 2012 when the VC's realize they're not achieving anything.
I predict Google will be bankrupt by 2012 when the VC's realize they're not achieving anything.
Blipp
Apr 12, 11:26 AM
Boy, I've read the first few pages of this thread and have come to the overwhelming conclusion that most people posting differences on here between Windows/OSX simply don't know how or haven't learned yet how to fully use OS X. The majority of complaints seem to simply be people who don't know the key commands to do what they're blaming OS X for lacking. If something is that disruptive to your workflow why aren't you guys doing the minimal amount of research it would take to solve the issue?
Jack Stacks
Mar 18, 09:33 AM
AT&T already gets $50 I'll be damned if I pay anymore for the 1 time a month I actuly need to pull up a full web page due to flash. Yes they get $50 for data, $30 for my unlimited plan (I use ~1gb) and $20 for unlimited texts which is simply insanely small amounts of data.
What contract did I physically sigm when I got my phone? The only thing I signed was a credit card receipt. All you idiots need to read up about Ma Bell and the **** they tried pulling years ago. It's headed back in that direction now.
To all the morons who say if you don't like it don't get it. Your right the carriers should rule over ours lives. We should simply not have phones if we don't want to grab our ankles and like it, every time the phone companies come up with a new way to stick it to us.
Weak minds will continue to be brainwashed by larger corporations site any TOS you want. Your the same people that argued about how AT&T needed 2 years to get MMS to work, and they were right. Probably the same lot that gladly ponied up extra cash to unclock Bluetooth and ringtones on your celluar one / vzn phones.
What contract did I physically sigm when I got my phone? The only thing I signed was a credit card receipt. All you idiots need to read up about Ma Bell and the **** they tried pulling years ago. It's headed back in that direction now.
To all the morons who say if you don't like it don't get it. Your right the carriers should rule over ours lives. We should simply not have phones if we don't want to grab our ankles and like it, every time the phone companies come up with a new way to stick it to us.
Weak minds will continue to be brainwashed by larger corporations site any TOS you want. Your the same people that argued about how AT&T needed 2 years to get MMS to work, and they were right. Probably the same lot that gladly ponied up extra cash to unclock Bluetooth and ringtones on your celluar one / vzn phones.
puma1552
Mar 12, 05:11 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Not once have I said anything is safe. Not once have I said there is nothing to worry about; just the opposite--it's a serious situation and could get worse.
All I've said is we don't have enough information to make much of an assessment and to not panic.
With all due respect, somebody who doesn't even realize hydrogen is explosive isn't really in a position to tell someone holding two degrees in the field and speaking a good amount of the local language that he's de facto right and I'm de facto wrong.
Not once have I said anything is safe. Not once have I said there is nothing to worry about; just the opposite--it's a serious situation and could get worse.
All I've said is we don't have enough information to make much of an assessment and to not panic.
With all due respect, somebody who doesn't even realize hydrogen is explosive isn't really in a position to tell someone holding two degrees in the field and speaking a good amount of the local language that he's de facto right and I'm de facto wrong.
tigress666
Jun 13, 02:48 PM
So, serious question: Why do people put up with ATT?
I hear all the arguments that go back and forth: they suck, it would have happened to anyone, my service is terrible, my service is great, break exclusivity, keep exclusivity.
I own an iPod, iPad and MBP, but no iPhone. I know a lot of us LOVE our Apple products, but seriously, why don't more people talk to ATT with their dollars? If every ATT hater who owned an iPhone did not buy the next one, would that do the trick? Would that send a better message to Apple than an email to Jobs or a post on MacRumors.com? I know there have been efforts at crashing the data network and such, but wouldn't just NOT purchasing the product and NOT putting up with something you don't like be a bigger statement at the end of the day?
I'm not sure. I'd think we'd have to see a survey of AT&T customers of who is happy vs. who is not. I think you hear a lot from the people who are unhappy, but very little from those that are. Not to mention there are probably a lot of people out there that just don't think it important enough to put voice to their concerns (they either decide it's not worth it and leave or they stay either cause they don't mind the service or the iphone is worth it or simply never experienced anything else so don't realize there is anything to improve <- I might be in this boat but I honestly have never seen a reason to leave AT&T. I've always had good customer service with them, don't have a complaint about the coverage, and the price is right. Only other carrier I have had experience with was when my parents had Sprint which has for at least 10 years biased me against them).
I mean, I wouldn't have gotten the iphone if it wasn't on AT&T (or most likely wouldn't). When I was looking for a phone, while I was slightly open to the idea of changing carriers if I found a phone I really wanted on another one, my preference was to not leave AT&T as I had no reason to leave (besides phones offered).
I'm sure people already vote with their dollars. Either the service is so bad the phone isn't worth it (or AT&T doesn't even offer a phone they like or some one else has exactly what htey want) or they're happy with the service and can find a phone that is satisfactory to them (or like it so much they just grumble a little about phone availability but stay anyways). No one is forced to be on AT&T cause AT&T has the iphone. They are forced to make a decision on whether the iphone is worth it or not.
I hear all the arguments that go back and forth: they suck, it would have happened to anyone, my service is terrible, my service is great, break exclusivity, keep exclusivity.
I own an iPod, iPad and MBP, but no iPhone. I know a lot of us LOVE our Apple products, but seriously, why don't more people talk to ATT with their dollars? If every ATT hater who owned an iPhone did not buy the next one, would that do the trick? Would that send a better message to Apple than an email to Jobs or a post on MacRumors.com? I know there have been efforts at crashing the data network and such, but wouldn't just NOT purchasing the product and NOT putting up with something you don't like be a bigger statement at the end of the day?
I'm not sure. I'd think we'd have to see a survey of AT&T customers of who is happy vs. who is not. I think you hear a lot from the people who are unhappy, but very little from those that are. Not to mention there are probably a lot of people out there that just don't think it important enough to put voice to their concerns (they either decide it's not worth it and leave or they stay either cause they don't mind the service or the iphone is worth it or simply never experienced anything else so don't realize there is anything to improve <- I might be in this boat but I honestly have never seen a reason to leave AT&T. I've always had good customer service with them, don't have a complaint about the coverage, and the price is right. Only other carrier I have had experience with was when my parents had Sprint which has for at least 10 years biased me against them).
I mean, I wouldn't have gotten the iphone if it wasn't on AT&T (or most likely wouldn't). When I was looking for a phone, while I was slightly open to the idea of changing carriers if I found a phone I really wanted on another one, my preference was to not leave AT&T as I had no reason to leave (besides phones offered).
I'm sure people already vote with their dollars. Either the service is so bad the phone isn't worth it (or AT&T doesn't even offer a phone they like or some one else has exactly what htey want) or they're happy with the service and can find a phone that is satisfactory to them (or like it so much they just grumble a little about phone availability but stay anyways). No one is forced to be on AT&T cause AT&T has the iphone. They are forced to make a decision on whether the iphone is worth it or not.
thejadedmonkey
Sep 12, 04:24 PM
It needs DVR recording for this price point. As someone else mentioned earlier, I can use a $5 cable to connect my computer to my TV. It need something else that will make me want to spend the extra $244 on it. Either that, or apple needs to stop touting the iMac as a media PC because the TV will compete with it.
Deimo
Jul 11, 11:17 PM
Here's a little list i put together last week of my predictions for the next 6 months or so of a roadmap (whenever merom goes to 800 MHz on its bus, so maybe 9 months)
Portable:
MacBook: Yonah through 1q 667MHz bus Merom thereafter
MacBook Pro: Yonah through 3q2006, 667MHz bus Merom through 1q2007,
800MHz bus Merom thereafter
Desktop:
Mac mini: Yonah through 1q2007, 667MHz bus Merom thereafter
iMac: Yonah through 3q2006, 800MHz bus Conroe thereafter
Mac Pro: 1333MHz bus Woodcrest
Portable:
MacBook: Yonah through 1q 667MHz bus Merom thereafter
MacBook Pro: Yonah through 3q2006, 667MHz bus Merom through 1q2007,
800MHz bus Merom thereafter
Desktop:
Mac mini: Yonah through 1q2007, 667MHz bus Merom thereafter
iMac: Yonah through 3q2006, 800MHz bus Conroe thereafter
Mac Pro: 1333MHz bus Woodcrest
T'hain Esh Kelch
Sep 12, 03:38 PM
So basically this needs two things for me to buy it:
� You must be able to record from the TV, directly to your mac.
� It must replace Airport Express.
Im still not sure on the last one..
Optical drive isnt a biggie for me, since you can just stream from your Mac's Superdrive anyway.
And i like how they say 802.11 instead of 802.11g, which probably means we are gonna get 802.11n. Would also make sense why it isnt out now! :)
But why they are showing it of know.. Well.. Steve rreallyreallyreallyeally wanted to show of?
� You must be able to record from the TV, directly to your mac.
� It must replace Airport Express.
Im still not sure on the last one..
Optical drive isnt a biggie for me, since you can just stream from your Mac's Superdrive anyway.
And i like how they say 802.11 instead of 802.11g, which probably means we are gonna get 802.11n. Would also make sense why it isnt out now! :)
But why they are showing it of know.. Well.. Steve rreallyreallyreallyeally wanted to show of?
inkswamp
May 2, 01:32 PM
As I understand it, Safari will open the zip file since it's a "safe" download. But that doesn't mean it'll execute the code within that zip file, so how is this malware executing without user permission?
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?
Edit: I see. It starts an installer that the user has to go along with willingly, and therefore it's nothing even remotely similar to the stealth install crapware on Windows. Next.
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?
Edit: I see. It starts an installer that the user has to go along with willingly, and therefore it's nothing even remotely similar to the stealth install crapware on Windows. Next.
greenstork
Sep 20, 02:00 PM
The hard drive (if not used as DVR) will likely be used as temporary storage buffer. So if you buy a movie off iTS, it automatically streams to iTV and saved to the hard drive until you consume it.
And this is how the device will be able to do high definition. Since it's pretty difficult to stream 720p (or higher) content in real time, the iTV will buffer the stream and start playing when it is able.
This opens up tons of new possibilities and affirms for me at least, the ability to.
The real question is, is the HDD upgradeable?
And this is how the device will be able to do high definition. Since it's pretty difficult to stream 720p (or higher) content in real time, the iTV will buffer the stream and start playing when it is able.
This opens up tons of new possibilities and affirms for me at least, the ability to.
The real question is, is the HDD upgradeable?
scottlinux
Oct 25, 11:11 PM
I think price will be the key. These are pricey chips. Apple will have to work their magic.
I wonder how many current Mac Pro owners will just buy the new chips off pricewatch.com and pop them in.
I wonder how many current Mac Pro owners will just buy the new chips off pricewatch.com and pop them in.
dguisinger
Mar 19, 04:37 PM
Actually the reason why it isn't encoded with DRM on the server is that if they did that they would need a copy of every song for every customer they have on the server.
They don't care how you put songs on the iPod anyway... just that you buy an iPod to put the songs on. iTMS is there to sell iPods after all. Therefore if someone breaks the DRM and allows you to put the downloaded songs on ANY MP3 player it most DEFINATELY will not please Apple. The DRM isn't just there to appease the RIAA, it is there to make sure we keep buying iPods.
Not really, with any web-based programming language you can process the output of a file in real time. The server can insert water marks into images, provide different content on a URL based on who is accessing; oh yes, and encrypt the file stream with the users encription and not have to store a byte of it....
They don't care how you put songs on the iPod anyway... just that you buy an iPod to put the songs on. iTMS is there to sell iPods after all. Therefore if someone breaks the DRM and allows you to put the downloaded songs on ANY MP3 player it most DEFINATELY will not please Apple. The DRM isn't just there to appease the RIAA, it is there to make sure we keep buying iPods.
Not really, with any web-based programming language you can process the output of a file in real time. The server can insert water marks into images, provide different content on a URL based on who is accessing; oh yes, and encrypt the file stream with the users encription and not have to store a byte of it....
BruiserBear
Apr 15, 09:23 AM
and 8 morons hit the "negative" button. That's why videos like this are necessary. Because there are a lot of stupid people out there who don't understand the world as it is.
wkhahn
Sep 20, 11:01 AM
You might have a point here but at that price point I suspect a 30GB HD and no PVR use. The HD could be used for caching and PPV/rental movies though.
I was going to ask why not a PRV, but realized it myself. While apple does not prevent you from loading music you have aquired through other means onto your iPod, they don't help you either. They don't help you buy CD's because its too broad an experience to simplfy. Same with the PVR. How a customer aquires content from a provider varies too much for apple to engineer an simple solution. But they can provide their own simple content delivery solution.
Next, they need to provide an NAS for all your media either from the store, ripped from disc or created yourself. Move the media off the computer.
I was going to ask why not a PRV, but realized it myself. While apple does not prevent you from loading music you have aquired through other means onto your iPod, they don't help you either. They don't help you buy CD's because its too broad an experience to simplfy. Same with the PVR. How a customer aquires content from a provider varies too much for apple to engineer an simple solution. But they can provide their own simple content delivery solution.
Next, they need to provide an NAS for all your media either from the store, ripped from disc or created yourself. Move the media off the computer.
