r1ch4rd
Apr 22, 10:39 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?
I was thinking about this after appleguy123 mentioned the idea of hellfire. My initial thought is that the heaven/hell idea is boring! It's so much less interesting and inspiring than what really happens to you. The processes and work and how every living being fits into the ecosystem is just amazing. I think the idea that this has evolved over millions of years is just brilliant. Science adds such wonder to the world. The majesty of god has nothing on this!
I also love the idea that anybody can challenge an idea and change the way everybody thinks. How dull would it be if we just accepted everything at face value (ie. God did it!)?
I was thinking about this after appleguy123 mentioned the idea of hellfire. My initial thought is that the heaven/hell idea is boring! It's so much less interesting and inspiring than what really happens to you. The processes and work and how every living being fits into the ecosystem is just amazing. I think the idea that this has evolved over millions of years is just brilliant. Science adds such wonder to the world. The majesty of god has nothing on this!
I also love the idea that anybody can challenge an idea and change the way everybody thinks. How dull would it be if we just accepted everything at face value (ie. God did it!)?
Steve121178
Apr 28, 08:03 AM
Horrible headline.
You do not "slip" upwards.
The headline is as false as the story. The iPad is not a PC.
You do not "slip" upwards.
The headline is as false as the story. The iPad is not a PC.
bingo1234
Sep 21, 03:26 AM
airport express and airtunes allowed streaming content to a stereo. this just adds video function. that's it. if there is a hd it's for buffer and basic OS/ navigation.
still a very cool solution to sending content
still a very cool solution to sending content
bedifferent
May 2, 12:22 PM
Except antivirus doesn't usually catch things like this, neither does anti-spyware since it acts like a legit program.
I fix windows machines and servers for a living an unfortunately a majority of my week is spent removing said malware from windows machines.
Agreed. I charge about $125-150/hour working on Windows systems. Initially issues weren't virus/malware related, but I always do a full system scan and find at least a dozen or so on the majority of them. Whether it's PEBKAC (Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair) errors, or viruses and malware (most do not update their anti-virus data and it's increasingly difficult to catch new viruses as so many new ones appear), I make most of my money working part-time in Communications and IT on Windows systems.
People complain about the bill that they could have purchased a new machine to which I iterate if it's a Window based system they will still have these issues.
However, I do not like this news one bit. It's not serious to us as were not the Joe the Mac user, but it's demonstrating that OS X isn't 100% secure (but much more difficult to crack).
No computer for which the user can write or install programs will ever be free of Malware (nor, to my knowledge, has the "malware free" term ever been applied to the Mac OS by anyone actually familiar with computer security). All I have to do is write a script that formats your hard drive, call it ReallyFunGame, thereby deceiving you into downloading it and running it, and poof.
Unlike Windows based .exe's, the user either has to open the dmg and drop the malware app in their App folder and run it or run the package installer. Unlike Windows the user needs to run it, and it is difficult to fully remove Windows malware/viruses as it propagates in the OS much more so than OS X (system registry, etc.). So in OS X the user has to engage the malware, in Windows much of it can be done without the user's knowledge.
As OS X is predominately a consumer product most hackers are focused on Windows based OS's that are traditionally businesses oriented. This is not to state that OS X is 100% secure, far from it, but currently it's the more secure consumer/business OS on the market.
I fix windows machines and servers for a living an unfortunately a majority of my week is spent removing said malware from windows machines.
Agreed. I charge about $125-150/hour working on Windows systems. Initially issues weren't virus/malware related, but I always do a full system scan and find at least a dozen or so on the majority of them. Whether it's PEBKAC (Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair) errors, or viruses and malware (most do not update their anti-virus data and it's increasingly difficult to catch new viruses as so many new ones appear), I make most of my money working part-time in Communications and IT on Windows systems.
People complain about the bill that they could have purchased a new machine to which I iterate if it's a Window based system they will still have these issues.
However, I do not like this news one bit. It's not serious to us as were not the Joe the Mac user, but it's demonstrating that OS X isn't 100% secure (but much more difficult to crack).
No computer for which the user can write or install programs will ever be free of Malware (nor, to my knowledge, has the "malware free" term ever been applied to the Mac OS by anyone actually familiar with computer security). All I have to do is write a script that formats your hard drive, call it ReallyFunGame, thereby deceiving you into downloading it and running it, and poof.
Unlike Windows based .exe's, the user either has to open the dmg and drop the malware app in their App folder and run it or run the package installer. Unlike Windows the user needs to run it, and it is difficult to fully remove Windows malware/viruses as it propagates in the OS much more so than OS X (system registry, etc.). So in OS X the user has to engage the malware, in Windows much of it can be done without the user's knowledge.
As OS X is predominately a consumer product most hackers are focused on Windows based OS's that are traditionally businesses oriented. This is not to state that OS X is 100% secure, far from it, but currently it's the more secure consumer/business OS on the market.
supmango
Mar 18, 12:02 PM
You realize there's a difference between those that "man" the CSR phones and the people responsible for the IT infrastructure, billing, etc, right?
Of course there is a difference. But only in the individuals I am dealing with. My personal experience with AT&T (~2 years ago) is that they have difficulty communicating very basic information internally. This is things like upgrade eligibility, data plan pricing (between corporate and personal); you know, the stuff you can get pretty easily on the website. Now why would this be for a "telecom" company? This piece of evidence points to a pattern of incompetence that likely goes pretty deep. And, if in fact people are getting these threats from AT&T, and they call to discuss it with them, good luck getting any good information from the rep on the other end of the phone as to how they know this is happening.
As other's have pointed out, it seems like there are a few legal loopholes in what AT&T is trying to do. If they send you a message and you don't call, it's on you and they can do that (in the contract). If they change your terms of service, they have to notify you within 30 days, and you can cancel the rest of your contract. If, however, you call and they can't provide sufficient evidence of what they are accusing you of doing, and they are changing your terms no matter what, you have the right to terminate service. My guess is that they won't want you to do that, unless they have evidence that you are overloading their network. In which case, I think they can change your terms and not let you out of the contract (if someone wants to look that up, great, I don't really care enough to do it).
Someone who has received one of these messages needs to call and see what they say, and then post back. I am really curious about what kind of evidence they give you. It might be something as simple as targeting high-volume users and accusing them of tethering (as others have already mentioned).
Just because the person that answers your call doesn't know what is going on behind the scenes doesn't mean ATT isn't FULLY aware of who is and who is not tethering or what websites you are viewing, etc.
Perhaps, but it took them long enough to figure it out, or at least to take any action on it.
It's one thing to have that information, its another thing to access it and get a report on usage patterns that reliably determines that it us tethering usage. Internet usage can vary widely depending on the user. So it almost requires a human eye to look at it and make that determination. Even then, it can be a hard call.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have.
Of course there is a difference. But only in the individuals I am dealing with. My personal experience with AT&T (~2 years ago) is that they have difficulty communicating very basic information internally. This is things like upgrade eligibility, data plan pricing (between corporate and personal); you know, the stuff you can get pretty easily on the website. Now why would this be for a "telecom" company? This piece of evidence points to a pattern of incompetence that likely goes pretty deep. And, if in fact people are getting these threats from AT&T, and they call to discuss it with them, good luck getting any good information from the rep on the other end of the phone as to how they know this is happening.
As other's have pointed out, it seems like there are a few legal loopholes in what AT&T is trying to do. If they send you a message and you don't call, it's on you and they can do that (in the contract). If they change your terms of service, they have to notify you within 30 days, and you can cancel the rest of your contract. If, however, you call and they can't provide sufficient evidence of what they are accusing you of doing, and they are changing your terms no matter what, you have the right to terminate service. My guess is that they won't want you to do that, unless they have evidence that you are overloading their network. In which case, I think they can change your terms and not let you out of the contract (if someone wants to look that up, great, I don't really care enough to do it).
Someone who has received one of these messages needs to call and see what they say, and then post back. I am really curious about what kind of evidence they give you. It might be something as simple as targeting high-volume users and accusing them of tethering (as others have already mentioned).
Just because the person that answers your call doesn't know what is going on behind the scenes doesn't mean ATT isn't FULLY aware of who is and who is not tethering or what websites you are viewing, etc.
Perhaps, but it took them long enough to figure it out, or at least to take any action on it.
It's one thing to have that information, its another thing to access it and get a report on usage patterns that reliably determines that it us tethering usage. Internet usage can vary widely depending on the user. So it almost requires a human eye to look at it and make that determination. Even then, it can be a hard call.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have.
tk421
Apr 13, 12:34 PM
Nobody I know that's a professional editor (as opposed to a hobbyist) is very excited. If I had to sum up the opinions in two sentences, it would be: It looks like a mixed bag. I need to hear more.
My thoughts: On the surface, they seem to have addressed a lot of "problems" that didn't exist for me. At the same time, they did NOT address what I found to be the largest shortcomings: Media Management, and Multi-Editor Support. Which leads me to believe that it targets a different audience than I am. For example, I didn't see anything that makes it better for feature film use. But a lot of automated stuff (audio processing, color correction, etc.) will make it better for wedding videos or projects with really small budgets.
Some things, like making audio and video merged in a single track, sound like a drawback, not a feature. But I would have to try it out myself. Maybe it'd be good once I got used to the new way of doing things.
There were some things that sounded good. Utilizing multiple cores, 64 bit, background rendering, editing while ingesting, and PluralEyes-like audio syncing. Of course all this depends on how they're implemented. Just like I might actually like merging audio and video, I might end up not liking these things (for example if you can't disable background rendering). One other "feature" I really like is the price, but that's secondary to the actual functionality.
I guess we'll see. I'm interested in hearing more.
My thoughts: On the surface, they seem to have addressed a lot of "problems" that didn't exist for me. At the same time, they did NOT address what I found to be the largest shortcomings: Media Management, and Multi-Editor Support. Which leads me to believe that it targets a different audience than I am. For example, I didn't see anything that makes it better for feature film use. But a lot of automated stuff (audio processing, color correction, etc.) will make it better for wedding videos or projects with really small budgets.
Some things, like making audio and video merged in a single track, sound like a drawback, not a feature. But I would have to try it out myself. Maybe it'd be good once I got used to the new way of doing things.
There were some things that sounded good. Utilizing multiple cores, 64 bit, background rendering, editing while ingesting, and PluralEyes-like audio syncing. Of course all this depends on how they're implemented. Just like I might actually like merging audio and video, I might end up not liking these things (for example if you can't disable background rendering). One other "feature" I really like is the price, but that's secondary to the actual functionality.
I guess we'll see. I'm interested in hearing more.
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
soLoredd
Mar 18, 06:08 AM
How could you be the real IT guy if you believe that? Never meant an IT guy that had to "tweak" a few things to get a system to work, the best toys do what the manufacturer never intended!
I think it says TV, not IT. ;)
I think it says TV, not IT. ;)
aiqw9182
Apr 12, 10:21 PM
This is what iMovie after iMovie '06 should have been, if only because it has a PROPER FRICKIN' TIMELINE!
Was really hoping for $199, but $299 isn't bad. I might just upgrade from iMovie '06 (I'm not really a 'pro' editor, but I love my timelines!).
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/10/22/timeline-tweak-returns-imovie-11-to-old-school/
Was really hoping for $199, but $299 isn't bad. I might just upgrade from iMovie '06 (I'm not really a 'pro' editor, but I love my timelines!).
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/10/22/timeline-tweak-returns-imovie-11-to-old-school/
mikechan1234
Apr 9, 07:46 AM
Apple will buy Nintendo eventually.
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
delusional
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
delusional
CoryTV
Apr 12, 11:30 PM
You're assuming that if you didn't see a demo of it, it doesn't exist. iMovie has titling built in. They didn't demo titling this evening. Therefore, you're presuming this app has less titling than iMovie!
That seems pretty silly.
I made no such assumption, as far as less titling than imovie. But If there's a June release date, there is not 1 single major feature that hasn't been fully implemented. They are in final Beta. If they had a really high end titler/graphics engine, they would have shown it. Just like they would have shown high end grading. I'm not saying they're not coming at some point down the road, but I will eat a $100 bill on video if they have the full functionality of something like Color built in to this when it ships.
Look maybe what this all comes down to is this: They had to start somewhere, and they wanted to start selling it as soon as possible, and hope people will use FCS 3 + FCPX together until FCSX (why not jump to 10?) is released in 2 years.
Maybe this does have media sharing between stations, and pro tape i/o (which is still used by broadcast) But they don't need broadcast. That's the point. At $299 for the software, all they care about is people buying Apple Computers. And you know what? People buy Apple Computers who use Avid. Because they know at the very least, they can use FCP/Avid/CS5.5 on one system. And I do. And I will. I was just hoping at some point, I wouldn't have to choose between 3 NLE's on a per-project basis, as I will most likely be doing for the foreseeable future.
I LOVE the shiny new features on this. Thank GOD for 64-bit multicore. But in a lot of ways, tomorrow, many people will point out that Avid has been doing resolution and framerate independent timelines with ZERO rendering for like 18 months now. And Adobe's new warp stabilizer and h.264/avchd/red support are still pretty freakin amazing.
And I saw all the features through a tiny webstream, so maybe when I see it in glorious HD h.264 I'll change my mind.
But there's no reason in the 4 years since FCP 6 they couldn't have done all this and more. (FCP 7 was a really minor update) That's my frustration. They've been sitting on the COLOR tech, and they didn't fully integrate it? So we're still going to have to deal with the horrible round tripping as a best case senario? Or they didn't take some of the ideas of motion and integrate them seamlessly into the timeline, so we still have to use a separate FX program? Trust me, you could do this, and it would still be a good UI.
But fine, I'll plunk the $299 down and finally feel like I'm making use of all 8 of my cores, and pray for a day where I don't have to switch back and forth between apps.
That seems pretty silly.
I made no such assumption, as far as less titling than imovie. But If there's a June release date, there is not 1 single major feature that hasn't been fully implemented. They are in final Beta. If they had a really high end titler/graphics engine, they would have shown it. Just like they would have shown high end grading. I'm not saying they're not coming at some point down the road, but I will eat a $100 bill on video if they have the full functionality of something like Color built in to this when it ships.
Look maybe what this all comes down to is this: They had to start somewhere, and they wanted to start selling it as soon as possible, and hope people will use FCS 3 + FCPX together until FCSX (why not jump to 10?) is released in 2 years.
Maybe this does have media sharing between stations, and pro tape i/o (which is still used by broadcast) But they don't need broadcast. That's the point. At $299 for the software, all they care about is people buying Apple Computers. And you know what? People buy Apple Computers who use Avid. Because they know at the very least, they can use FCP/Avid/CS5.5 on one system. And I do. And I will. I was just hoping at some point, I wouldn't have to choose between 3 NLE's on a per-project basis, as I will most likely be doing for the foreseeable future.
I LOVE the shiny new features on this. Thank GOD for 64-bit multicore. But in a lot of ways, tomorrow, many people will point out that Avid has been doing resolution and framerate independent timelines with ZERO rendering for like 18 months now. And Adobe's new warp stabilizer and h.264/avchd/red support are still pretty freakin amazing.
And I saw all the features through a tiny webstream, so maybe when I see it in glorious HD h.264 I'll change my mind.
But there's no reason in the 4 years since FCP 6 they couldn't have done all this and more. (FCP 7 was a really minor update) That's my frustration. They've been sitting on the COLOR tech, and they didn't fully integrate it? So we're still going to have to deal with the horrible round tripping as a best case senario? Or they didn't take some of the ideas of motion and integrate them seamlessly into the timeline, so we still have to use a separate FX program? Trust me, you could do this, and it would still be a good UI.
But fine, I'll plunk the $299 down and finally feel like I'm making use of all 8 of my cores, and pray for a day where I don't have to switch back and forth between apps.
d.perel
Mar 19, 07:15 PM
the software would probably go over better if it did not contain the 1st syllable of 'Pirate' or 'Pirating' right before the word music..... :rolleyes:
AppliedVisual
Oct 6, 11:50 PM
And what would be your choice of graphic cards, considering that money doesn't grow on trees and price would be a factor?:)
At this moment, an nVidia 7950GX2oc would be just dandy. Or the ATI X1950XTI. I'd also take the current FX4500 if they would get with the program and knock $500 off the price tag. I can buy the PNY FX4500 for a PC right now in oem whitebox packaging for $1349. Apple wants $1650 as an upgrade price. Ouch... And while it has extra features like stencil buffers and multiple overlay planes, it's stuff that isn't really used except by very specialized visualization software. Even my 3D apps - Lightwave, Maya, Modo don't use those features. So, not worth the money since it barely outperforms the X1900XT option for most everything else.
Ultimately, I'd like to see some support for multiple cards working in parallel like SLI. Dual 7950GX2s would be great and I'd buy in an instant. ...Dell has that very config as an option and it's cheaper than what Apple wants for that FX4500, c'mon Apple, let's go!
At this moment, an nVidia 7950GX2oc would be just dandy. Or the ATI X1950XTI. I'd also take the current FX4500 if they would get with the program and knock $500 off the price tag. I can buy the PNY FX4500 for a PC right now in oem whitebox packaging for $1349. Apple wants $1650 as an upgrade price. Ouch... And while it has extra features like stencil buffers and multiple overlay planes, it's stuff that isn't really used except by very specialized visualization software. Even my 3D apps - Lightwave, Maya, Modo don't use those features. So, not worth the money since it barely outperforms the X1900XT option for most everything else.
Ultimately, I'd like to see some support for multiple cards working in parallel like SLI. Dual 7950GX2s would be great and I'd buy in an instant. ...Dell has that very config as an option and it's cheaper than what Apple wants for that FX4500, c'mon Apple, let's go!
tutubibi
Aug 29, 11:47 AM
From Apple's response:
"We have also completely eliminated CRT monitors, which contain lead, from our product line"
Yeah, it was done to help environment :D .
"We have also completely eliminated CRT monitors, which contain lead, from our product line"
Yeah, it was done to help environment :D .
ender land
Apr 26, 01:32 AM
If you strike a bias and confrontational tone, you get one in return.
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
I don't think I did and that certainly is not what I got in return.
I originally was not going to comment on this thread but the above post struck me as relatively interesting. Your first post is full of statements insinuating religious people are less intelligent, illogical, have something wrong with them, are stubborn, incapable of learning, etc.
You might get a useful answer if you instead asked "why do rational or intelligent people believe in religion" if you honestly want to learn more about what you address in the original post. Otherwise, you are not asking an earnest question, you are more or less stating "all religious people are unintelligent or irrational, what do you think?" Of course this would require acknowledging the possibility people might believe in religion for reasons other than fear, ignorance, stubbornness, etc.
Ultimately, the answer to this question will only occur if you can truthfully say "I fundamentally understand why someone is religious. They are because of A, B, C. The reason I disagree with this is because of X, Y, Z." You will not be able to fully answer your question from only the last part of that. Understanding the fundamental differences in what you believe and what someone else believes. And to be perfectly fair, there are probably a large number of religious people of all variety of faiths who probably could not defend their own faith (and in a more general case, real beliefs in general, religious/political/etc) and give any reasons of any significance why they hold the faith/beliefs they do.
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
I don't think I did and that certainly is not what I got in return.
I originally was not going to comment on this thread but the above post struck me as relatively interesting. Your first post is full of statements insinuating religious people are less intelligent, illogical, have something wrong with them, are stubborn, incapable of learning, etc.
You might get a useful answer if you instead asked "why do rational or intelligent people believe in religion" if you honestly want to learn more about what you address in the original post. Otherwise, you are not asking an earnest question, you are more or less stating "all religious people are unintelligent or irrational, what do you think?" Of course this would require acknowledging the possibility people might believe in religion for reasons other than fear, ignorance, stubbornness, etc.
Ultimately, the answer to this question will only occur if you can truthfully say "I fundamentally understand why someone is religious. They are because of A, B, C. The reason I disagree with this is because of X, Y, Z." You will not be able to fully answer your question from only the last part of that. Understanding the fundamental differences in what you believe and what someone else believes. And to be perfectly fair, there are probably a large number of religious people of all variety of faiths who probably could not defend their own faith (and in a more general case, real beliefs in general, religious/political/etc) and give any reasons of any significance why they hold the faith/beliefs they do.
Evangelion
Jul 12, 04:11 AM
there's no way apple's going to use woodcrest in the upcoming powermac rev because there are no motherboards for socket 771 (woodcrest) that support anything above pci express 8x.
I beg to differ (http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/5000x/index.htm)
I beg to differ (http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/5000x/index.htm)
gollum
Nov 28, 08:38 AM
I very rarely get dropped calls on AT & T (been with them since LA Cellular)
Abstract
Mar 19, 10:08 AM
aah yes of course.. (slap on forehead). hmm.. then adding DRM on fly before delivering might be the workaround apple does... although as noted in my previous post, that can be defeated too.
No no, I don't think people get it.
If they put DRM on the track before you buy it, then everyone who buys that song will have the same song with the same DRM, which means that any computer can play it, as everyone has the same iTunes and a track with the same DRM.
Adding specific DRM on the fly isn't what Apple has to do, either. Your iTunes still has to know that it IS the computer that you can play a particular track from, and not just any computer.
No no, I don't think people get it.
If they put DRM on the track before you buy it, then everyone who buys that song will have the same song with the same DRM, which means that any computer can play it, as everyone has the same iTunes and a track with the same DRM.
Adding specific DRM on the fly isn't what Apple has to do, either. Your iTunes still has to know that it IS the computer that you can play a particular track from, and not just any computer.
Speedy2
Oct 7, 01:04 PM
Sounds amazing like the same business model that has been followed by the Mac. A device with OS competing against an OS that will run on many devices. Current Mac market share 5.12% current Windows 92.77% (based on numbers from Market Share) . Does anyone else see this connection?
Yes. Google tries to be a better Microsoft by providing an _open_ software platform for multiple hardware makers, but they will not replicate MS's success, since MS dominated the OS market from the beginning and knew how to milk it whereas Google was late to a crowded party. Google may offer cheap drinks, but not fancier ones.
computers: MS and Intel take the cream and will do for a long time thanks to their near-unbreakable monopolies, most others are struggling.
mobiles: Nokia TOOK the cream in the past, in the future it will be Nokia, RIMM and Apple. It don't see any chance for Google to make equally big profits here. Android is merely treated as a means to secure their Web monopoly.
Yes. Google tries to be a better Microsoft by providing an _open_ software platform for multiple hardware makers, but they will not replicate MS's success, since MS dominated the OS market from the beginning and knew how to milk it whereas Google was late to a crowded party. Google may offer cheap drinks, but not fancier ones.
computers: MS and Intel take the cream and will do for a long time thanks to their near-unbreakable monopolies, most others are struggling.
mobiles: Nokia TOOK the cream in the past, in the future it will be Nokia, RIMM and Apple. It don't see any chance for Google to make equally big profits here. Android is merely treated as a means to secure their Web monopoly.
mdriftmeyer
Aug 29, 02:34 PM
Where is SUN? Brother, Samsung, Kodak, Minolta, SONY, etc?
I don't see any Television manufacturers? Philips? JVC? etc?
I don't see any Television manufacturers? Philips? JVC? etc?
BuddyTronic
Jan 23, 01:30 AM
I tried installing the android sdk, it is the usual linux crapfest of having to fix and tweak everything. After 1 hour I still could not get it working. Absolutely appalling, makes me wonder about google. Aapl wants max lockdown on all their **** but at least it works.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 12:11 PM
What? Oh please. That's simply not true. How the hell could you have kids if you were ALL called to chastity?
Did you maybe mean celibacy? I'm sorry that this confusion has happened to you. I know, there are lots of words in the English language and it's really hard to keep track of them all.
I suggest a dictionary. There are many on the web, even.
Did you maybe mean celibacy? I'm sorry that this confusion has happened to you. I know, there are lots of words in the English language and it's really hard to keep track of them all.
I suggest a dictionary. There are many on the web, even.
mscriv
Apr 6, 02:20 PM
All you have to do is press CMD+~ it's right above the tab key. I figured it out the other day. CMD+TAB to switch b/w apps, CMD+~ to switch b/w windows.
Thanks for that one. Been using a Mac for 6 years and never found it. Saves a lot of F3 and click action :).
I find no need for this shortcut as setting Expose's all windows feature to a mouse button seems to be the easiest and quickest way to shift between open windows. Have you tried that?
Thanks for that one. Been using a Mac for 6 years and never found it. Saves a lot of F3 and click action :).
I find no need for this shortcut as setting Expose's all windows feature to a mouse button seems to be the easiest and quickest way to shift between open windows. Have you tried that?
Peace
Sep 20, 05:29 PM
I whole-heartedly agree.
I find it higly unlikely that there's a physical Hard Drive in the box that amounts to anything more than the UI and/or chache/buffer.
There's absolutely no need and would complicate the equation indefinitely, especially concerning digital rights.
Let's assume Iger is right, though, that there IS a HDD in the TelePort (or as you infidels call it, iTV), and that it can act as a stand-alone media access point. The question remains, how would you be able to get media onto it? Either 1) it comes with some sort of operating system which allowed you to connect it to iTS for content, or 2) it could be detected by a Mac or PC as a computer/HD over the network in order to drag-n-drop media.
Option 1, I think, is too far-fetched and risky. There would be substantial reliability issues using HDs that small to run an OS. We've all heard many nightmare-ish stories about people trying to bring their home computer to work, booting via iPod. Nonetheless, this seems like the most likely option for the use of a HDD.
Option 2, if this is the case, you already have a full-sized (i.e. reliable) HDD in your computer, which is connected to the internet, (i.e. iTS) for content. Why would you even need a HD in the box? Basically, Apple would be spending money on MicroDrives which don't have a reliable life-span and take up valuable space inside the box and for what? So that you can have an identical copy of a 1GB movie on both your Mac and your iTV box? As long as streaming works, there's no need. As long as streaming works, there's no need. As long as streaming works, there's no need!
PLUS, with iTunes DRM, you are limited to the number of copies you can make on devices you own. So an HD in the iTV would eat up one of those copies for any of the media you would choose to load onto it.
I do think, however, it would be likely to allow it to connect to .Mac, although streaming from the net is slower than from within an internal network... and on top of that, I don't know many people who store full-length, full-quality movies in their .Mac storage. In fact, I don't know any.
So, that's why I think there will be no HDD in the TelePort.
-Clive
That makes no sense at all..
In order to even view and/or listen to any media from another computer it needs a front row interface.That interface must be on the component itself.So in order for front row to run it must have some kind of O/S built into it.
I find it higly unlikely that there's a physical Hard Drive in the box that amounts to anything more than the UI and/or chache/buffer.
There's absolutely no need and would complicate the equation indefinitely, especially concerning digital rights.
Let's assume Iger is right, though, that there IS a HDD in the TelePort (or as you infidels call it, iTV), and that it can act as a stand-alone media access point. The question remains, how would you be able to get media onto it? Either 1) it comes with some sort of operating system which allowed you to connect it to iTS for content, or 2) it could be detected by a Mac or PC as a computer/HD over the network in order to drag-n-drop media.
Option 1, I think, is too far-fetched and risky. There would be substantial reliability issues using HDs that small to run an OS. We've all heard many nightmare-ish stories about people trying to bring their home computer to work, booting via iPod. Nonetheless, this seems like the most likely option for the use of a HDD.
Option 2, if this is the case, you already have a full-sized (i.e. reliable) HDD in your computer, which is connected to the internet, (i.e. iTS) for content. Why would you even need a HD in the box? Basically, Apple would be spending money on MicroDrives which don't have a reliable life-span and take up valuable space inside the box and for what? So that you can have an identical copy of a 1GB movie on both your Mac and your iTV box? As long as streaming works, there's no need. As long as streaming works, there's no need. As long as streaming works, there's no need!
PLUS, with iTunes DRM, you are limited to the number of copies you can make on devices you own. So an HD in the iTV would eat up one of those copies for any of the media you would choose to load onto it.
I do think, however, it would be likely to allow it to connect to .Mac, although streaming from the net is slower than from within an internal network... and on top of that, I don't know many people who store full-length, full-quality movies in their .Mac storage. In fact, I don't know any.
So, that's why I think there will be no HDD in the TelePort.
-Clive
That makes no sense at all..
In order to even view and/or listen to any media from another computer it needs a front row interface.That interface must be on the component itself.So in order for front row to run it must have some kind of O/S built into it.
Post Title → modern hairstyles for men with thick hair
