Lord Blackadder
Mar 16, 01:48 PM
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable energy reserves are accurate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable energy reserves are accurate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 10:47 AM
No, no, I know who that is! He wrote lots of scripture (unlike Jesus):
Oh the day divides the night
Night divides the day
Try to run
Try to hide
Break on through to
The other side
And the verse that everyone would do well to heed,
Show me the way to the next whiskey bar
Heretic! That is not the image of your false prophet.
Oh the day divides the night
Night divides the day
Try to run
Try to hide
Break on through to
The other side
And the verse that everyone would do well to heed,
Show me the way to the next whiskey bar
Heretic! That is not the image of your false prophet.
Peace
Sep 12, 04:57 PM
Good to know, since I'm not waiting till Q1 to upgrade. Could you elaborate on why you think that.
Because if it is 802.11n most new Macs would have been sold between now and when the device comes out.If the "new" Macs being sold post Sept. won't have a firmware update thats going to leave a LOT of potential customers out.
Simple matter of economics..
Because if it is 802.11n most new Macs would have been sold between now and when the device comes out.If the "new" Macs being sold post Sept. won't have a firmware update thats going to leave a LOT of potential customers out.
Simple matter of economics..
wkhahn
Sep 20, 10:34 AM
The obvious uses for a HDD to be included in the iTV have been discussed fairly extensivly. I'll try not to rehash anything, and all appologies if I do without giving credit. On to the point.
Apple is in the hardware business. They make software and provided services to generate sales and lock you into thier hardware. They make like $.01 per song; maybe $.50 a movie. So why do it? So we'll buy a new iPod/computer every few years. The same holds true for iTV. Its hardware. Apple will include anything if it makes the hardware purchase more compelling. So why the HDD in iTV? For ALL the obvious reasons. Maybe they partition an 80GB iPod drive; say 10, 10 and 60. 10GB for a "rental" service downloaded straignt to the new box. They are locked to the box and once its full you can't rent anything else without returning something. 10GB for a streaming cache from your computer. And 60GB for PRV use. Why not?
Apple is in the hardware business. They make software and provided services to generate sales and lock you into thier hardware. They make like $.01 per song; maybe $.50 a movie. So why do it? So we'll buy a new iPod/computer every few years. The same holds true for iTV. Its hardware. Apple will include anything if it makes the hardware purchase more compelling. So why the HDD in iTV? For ALL the obvious reasons. Maybe they partition an 80GB iPod drive; say 10, 10 and 60. 10GB for a "rental" service downloaded straignt to the new box. They are locked to the box and once its full you can't rent anything else without returning something. 10GB for a streaming cache from your computer. And 60GB for PRV use. Why not?
dudemac
Mar 18, 07:11 PM
DRM has everything
However, this is a major breach of security for Apple, that a home-brew front end can access their music store. Apple, will have to move on this big-time with everything they have. But it will require a major shift in their infrastructure to permanently fix.
I have to disagree that this is somehow a security breach. I have seen other front-end for the itms, just not ones that allowed purchase. It has been awhile but I think there was a extension in firefox that allowed you to access the itms database. So really this is just a feature enhancement of that.
However, this is a major breach of security for Apple, that a home-brew front end can access their music store. Apple, will have to move on this big-time with everything they have. But it will require a major shift in their infrastructure to permanently fix.
I have to disagree that this is somehow a security breach. I have seen other front-end for the itms, just not ones that allowed purchase. It has been awhile but I think there was a extension in firefox that allowed you to access the itms database. So really this is just a feature enhancement of that.
HiRez
Sep 26, 05:17 AM
My only hope is now that multi-core systems have gone mainstream that someone (cough -M$-cough) will make multi-processor aware apps "fashionable" and extend the trend.
The Demi-Gods may be able to back me up on this, but Apple's not been great on this front despite leading (well, NEXT) the front on main stream multi-processor systems.Well, since they started selling multi-processor PowerMacs, they've been quite good about it. Final Cut Pro, Motion, iTunes, and iMovie all use multiple-processors, as does anything that uses CoreAudio. I don't know about Aperture, but I'd bet it uses multithreading/multiprocessing extensively. Plus the most important app of all is quite good at utilizing multiple processors, OS X. I don't know about other Apple apps such as Pages, Keynote, iPhoto, and iWeb, but there's probably a limited amount of things they can efficiently multithread in those apps due to the nature of work being done.
Bottom line is that if you're not doing long-form processor-intensive stuff such as 2D/3D animation rendering, video encoding, mathematical/scientific analysis, running simulations, etc. then you probably won't get much benefit from more than two cores (you'll be better off with two cores running at faster clock speeds). But if you are, eight cores will be fantastic.
The Demi-Gods may be able to back me up on this, but Apple's not been great on this front despite leading (well, NEXT) the front on main stream multi-processor systems.Well, since they started selling multi-processor PowerMacs, they've been quite good about it. Final Cut Pro, Motion, iTunes, and iMovie all use multiple-processors, as does anything that uses CoreAudio. I don't know about Aperture, but I'd bet it uses multithreading/multiprocessing extensively. Plus the most important app of all is quite good at utilizing multiple processors, OS X. I don't know about other Apple apps such as Pages, Keynote, iPhoto, and iWeb, but there's probably a limited amount of things they can efficiently multithread in those apps due to the nature of work being done.
Bottom line is that if you're not doing long-form processor-intensive stuff such as 2D/3D animation rendering, video encoding, mathematical/scientific analysis, running simulations, etc. then you probably won't get much benefit from more than two cores (you'll be better off with two cores running at faster clock speeds). But if you are, eight cores will be fantastic.
munkery
May 2, 05:30 PM
so a very small percentage of the market will be using it (the better tech) then?
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I read somewhere that Chrome may drop it's own sandbox in favour of Webkit2 given that Chrome is based on Webkit.
Webkit2 will sandbox plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine (Javascript) from the UI frame and that sandbox will be the same regardless of the user account type running on the Mac, even root.
IE sandboxes tab processes from each other and the UI frame but it does not sandbox the plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine from the tab processes.
Also, the Windows sandbox is turned off or lessened if the user turns off UAC or lessens UAC restrictions. This effect of UAC on Windows sandbox also affects Chrome on Windows given that Chrome uses that technology to achieve it's sandbox in Windows. So, do not disable or reduce UAC in Windows!
You have to remember a browsers sandbox is based on the sandbox technology of the underlying OS. Windows sandbox is based on inherited permissions much like the older sandbox technology called Unix DAC that has always been implemented in the default user account in OS X. The newer sandbox in OS X, the TrustedBSD MAC framework, does not function via inherited permissions.
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I read somewhere that Chrome may drop it's own sandbox in favour of Webkit2 given that Chrome is based on Webkit.
Webkit2 will sandbox plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine (Javascript) from the UI frame and that sandbox will be the same regardless of the user account type running on the Mac, even root.
IE sandboxes tab processes from each other and the UI frame but it does not sandbox the plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine from the tab processes.
Also, the Windows sandbox is turned off or lessened if the user turns off UAC or lessens UAC restrictions. This effect of UAC on Windows sandbox also affects Chrome on Windows given that Chrome uses that technology to achieve it's sandbox in Windows. So, do not disable or reduce UAC in Windows!
You have to remember a browsers sandbox is based on the sandbox technology of the underlying OS. Windows sandbox is based on inherited permissions much like the older sandbox technology called Unix DAC that has always been implemented in the default user account in OS X. The newer sandbox in OS X, the TrustedBSD MAC framework, does not function via inherited permissions.
BubbaMc
Apr 13, 03:45 AM
What are the chances that Logic X will be released around the same time?
Povilas
Oct 7, 02:14 PM
Cause it's not. I played with the iPhone SDK for a test app and had to relearn a few things. For example, the + or - in front of a method, which means instance or class method (or vice-versa). I could find the right information (or Google keywords) to get it without a few bouts of swearing.
Then my company got a contract to port an iPhone app to Android. And by port I mean rewrite since we can't share anything from obj-c to Java.
Coming from a C/C++ background, the learning curve was really quick. Plus Google did a relatively good job with its SDK and emulator which work pretty well on both Mac and Windows.
For me Objective-C is user-friendly enough.
Then my company got a contract to port an iPhone app to Android. And by port I mean rewrite since we can't share anything from obj-c to Java.
Coming from a C/C++ background, the learning curve was really quick. Plus Google did a relatively good job with its SDK and emulator which work pretty well on both Mac and Windows.
For me Objective-C is user-friendly enough.
ddtlm
Oct 10, 01:10 PM
alex_ant:
Great to see you fighting the good fight!
others:
As true as it is that the G4 is slower than most of its compeditiors, when it is performing as bad as the numbers that some people have posted here then I can just about assure you that the Mac is at a severe software disadvantage. I mean really, look at the specs of a G4, the worst case performance delta between it and a top-of-the-line PC should be maybe 4x or 5x, not these 10x and higher numbers. There are very few situations when a G4 should do less work per clock than a P4.
So lets try to remain realistic here. It is virtually gaurenteed that the actual performance potential of a 1.25ghz G4 falls between that of a 1.3ghz P4 and the 2.8ghz P4.
EDIT:
Almost forgot to talk about SPEC. Some time ago, the only SPEC results that I know of for Macs were obtained by c't:
http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/
In these they showed the G4 was more or less the same speed as a P3 of equal clock (1.0ghz) in the integer tests, when both where done done with GCC. Intel's compiler can give the P3 at 30% edge or something, so we know that the quality of compiler is hurting the G4 here. It is not fair to look at SPEC and declare other chips to be a zillion times faster than the G4, simply because they are all using very good compilers whereas Apple is stuck with GCC. Apple is working to improve GCC however, so things may get better.
(In SPEC FP the G4 get beat worse, I might add. Compilers played a role for sure, but can't explain the whole loss.)
Great to see you fighting the good fight!
others:
As true as it is that the G4 is slower than most of its compeditiors, when it is performing as bad as the numbers that some people have posted here then I can just about assure you that the Mac is at a severe software disadvantage. I mean really, look at the specs of a G4, the worst case performance delta between it and a top-of-the-line PC should be maybe 4x or 5x, not these 10x and higher numbers. There are very few situations when a G4 should do less work per clock than a P4.
So lets try to remain realistic here. It is virtually gaurenteed that the actual performance potential of a 1.25ghz G4 falls between that of a 1.3ghz P4 and the 2.8ghz P4.
EDIT:
Almost forgot to talk about SPEC. Some time ago, the only SPEC results that I know of for Macs were obtained by c't:
http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/
In these they showed the G4 was more or less the same speed as a P3 of equal clock (1.0ghz) in the integer tests, when both where done done with GCC. Intel's compiler can give the P3 at 30% edge or something, so we know that the quality of compiler is hurting the G4 here. It is not fair to look at SPEC and declare other chips to be a zillion times faster than the G4, simply because they are all using very good compilers whereas Apple is stuck with GCC. Apple is working to improve GCC however, so things may get better.
(In SPEC FP the G4 get beat worse, I might add. Compilers played a role for sure, but can't explain the whole loss.)
Liquorpuki
Mar 13, 05:09 PM
We don't need nuclear, or coal or oil for that matter.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
No it couldn't. That would require grid energy storage technology that currently hasn't been invented yet.
Look up base load generation. There are only a few sources of generation that fall under this category. Nuclear and coal are among them. Most renewables are not.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
No it couldn't. That would require grid energy storage technology that currently hasn't been invented yet.
Look up base load generation. There are only a few sources of generation that fall under this category. Nuclear and coal are among them. Most renewables are not.
samcraig
Mar 18, 09:09 AM
How is someone stealing bandwidth, if they are paying for unlimited data. If anything ATT is stealing from them by not allowing them to use their data that they paying for....
ATT isn't stealing anything. And they are giving you unlimited data on your phone and your phone only because THAT is what you agreed to.
If you want to change the rules, then att can enforce the rules YOU agreed to.
ATT isn't stealing anything. And they are giving you unlimited data on your phone and your phone only because THAT is what you agreed to.
If you want to change the rules, then att can enforce the rules YOU agreed to.
OllyW
Apr 13, 02:41 AM
I bet the guy who destroyed iMovie 06 has something to do with this. Lets just hope I'm wrong.
Do you mean the same guy who led the team that created Final Cut Pro in the first place? ;)
Do you mean the same guy who led the team that created Final Cut Pro in the first place? ;)
Snowy_River
Mar 19, 01:30 AM
...
Also, $0.34 is a nice profit per song * 300+ million songs and growing. Not bad business for just pushing bits!
...
Well, that assumes that $0.34 is profit, not gross. Any idea how much they net per song? It seems to me that the last number I heard was somewhere around $0.02-$0.03. The rest goes to cover expenses of pushing those bits around. And $0.03 * 300+ million, while still a respectable number - especially in comparison to my checking account balance - is really little more than a drop in the bucket for Apple...
Also, $0.34 is a nice profit per song * 300+ million songs and growing. Not bad business for just pushing bits!
...
Well, that assumes that $0.34 is profit, not gross. Any idea how much they net per song? It seems to me that the last number I heard was somewhere around $0.02-$0.03. The rest goes to cover expenses of pushing those bits around. And $0.03 * 300+ million, while still a respectable number - especially in comparison to my checking account balance - is really little more than a drop in the bucket for Apple...
Edge100
Apr 15, 01:18 PM
Yeah, I was waiting for that one. It's pretty low-rent as far as fallacies go, I'm not sure why it is trotted out as often as it is. It's always used to argue stupid things like Hitler's religious beliefs represent the truest form of Christianity, and if you don't believe so, you're violating this sacred "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
No TRUE circle is square! Yeah, that one's true. You can't torpedo a well-defined institution by finding an example of someone not living up to its rules.
The point is that you don't get to redefine "Christian" to suit your argument.
Hitler was a Christian. That is a fact. That doesn't mean that Christianity is equivalent to Nazism and fascism. That would, indeed, be a fallacy.
But again, this is obfuscation. You can't explain away bad things done by Christians by redefining "Christian".
No TRUE circle is square! Yeah, that one's true. You can't torpedo a well-defined institution by finding an example of someone not living up to its rules.
The point is that you don't get to redefine "Christian" to suit your argument.
Hitler was a Christian. That is a fact. That doesn't mean that Christianity is equivalent to Nazism and fascism. That would, indeed, be a fallacy.
But again, this is obfuscation. You can't explain away bad things done by Christians by redefining "Christian".
bpaluzzi
Apr 28, 01:06 PM
No I understand quite well. Your example leads me to believe you don't.
People didn't wear, display, or carry their internet connection in public, they did the iPod.
Why do you think White headphones, and MP3 players of similar look / shape & form factor became popular (from other manufacturers mind you) after the iPod became popular? Likely because it was a popular look / gadget that many people wanted.
A fad rarely includes items of technology, but sometimes it does. The subject of the iPod being a fad isn't something just I created / think, it has been discussed for a few years now, especially since the introduction of the iPhone.
Cheers
Yeah, you still don't understand what a fad is. Wow.
People didn't wear, display, or carry their internet connection in public, they did the iPod.
Why do you think White headphones, and MP3 players of similar look / shape & form factor became popular (from other manufacturers mind you) after the iPod became popular? Likely because it was a popular look / gadget that many people wanted.
A fad rarely includes items of technology, but sometimes it does. The subject of the iPod being a fad isn't something just I created / think, it has been discussed for a few years now, especially since the introduction of the iPhone.
Cheers
Yeah, you still don't understand what a fad is. Wow.
Cromulent
Apr 24, 11:44 AM
Based on what you've written, you have a very narrow view of what you consider to be "Christianity." You should perhaps spell that out--what I would infer from what you've written is that to "Christian" one must interpret the Bible (by which I assume you mean the Old and New Testaments) fairly literally and that any denomination which does not do so cannot be "Christian." Which would be news to many of the major Christian denominations.
Perhaps you should substitute "fundamental Christian" for Christian, since that term seems to be more in line with what you've written.
Not at all. I think anyone who identifies as a Christian is a Christian by definition. I just think that the lengths some goto rationalise their beliefs are ridiculous. Why bother being a Christian at all if you are going to change some of the core tenants of the belief.
I am mean I heard the other day (second hand so apply salt liberally) that some Christians are even changing the whole holy trinity thing so that it is less "way out there".
My general thinking on this is that if you can "interpret" so much of the Bible then why do you need a centralised religion at all? Why isn't anyone who believes in a god (any god) a Christian if the definition is so liberal? The only thing that seems constant in Christianity is that every denomination considers the Bible to be their holy book. Everything else, including the meaning whether literal or interpreted is completely up for grabs.
It just strikes me as odd that God would let the state of his religion fall into such disrepair.
Just my thoughts.
Perhaps you should substitute "fundamental Christian" for Christian, since that term seems to be more in line with what you've written.
Not at all. I think anyone who identifies as a Christian is a Christian by definition. I just think that the lengths some goto rationalise their beliefs are ridiculous. Why bother being a Christian at all if you are going to change some of the core tenants of the belief.
I am mean I heard the other day (second hand so apply salt liberally) that some Christians are even changing the whole holy trinity thing so that it is less "way out there".
My general thinking on this is that if you can "interpret" so much of the Bible then why do you need a centralised religion at all? Why isn't anyone who believes in a god (any god) a Christian if the definition is so liberal? The only thing that seems constant in Christianity is that every denomination considers the Bible to be their holy book. Everything else, including the meaning whether literal or interpreted is completely up for grabs.
It just strikes me as odd that God would let the state of his religion fall into such disrepair.
Just my thoughts.
AlBDamned
Aug 29, 11:14 AM
zero evidence, other than my gut feeling.
Then that's nothing but semi-diluted Apple fanboi-ism which is, in my opinion, a lot worse than any Dell computer.
Given Greenpeace's mission and credibility, I think it's safe to assume that all manufacturers featured were graded on the same criteria. So at least in this survey, it's quite believable that Apple has dived compared to its competitors.
Apple does promote a hip, cool and socially aware image, but as a business it's quite far removed from that ideal.
Then that's nothing but semi-diluted Apple fanboi-ism which is, in my opinion, a lot worse than any Dell computer.
Given Greenpeace's mission and credibility, I think it's safe to assume that all manufacturers featured were graded on the same criteria. So at least in this survey, it's quite believable that Apple has dived compared to its competitors.
Apple does promote a hip, cool and socially aware image, but as a business it's quite far removed from that ideal.
Silentwave
Jul 11, 11:32 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
I agree for the most part, but there is no conroe with 800MHz FSB, and the only core 2 desktop processor with it will be a single variant of Allendale at 1.6GHz. If it gets Core 2, iMac will see at least 1066MHz FSB.
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
I agree for the most part, but there is no conroe with 800MHz FSB, and the only core 2 desktop processor with it will be a single variant of Allendale at 1.6GHz. If it gets Core 2, iMac will see at least 1066MHz FSB.
Aduntu
Apr 22, 10:50 PM
Yes, you did. You lumped up three distinct theories about three different aspects of cosmic, geological, and biological history, all because they were an affront to your beliefs (or to your incredulity, whichever fits better).
"Exploding" only applies to the Big Bang Theory (and barely at that). Planetary formation and cell formation are radically different and quite complex, as is the Big Bang Theory. Trying to lump them all into one "explosion" from which your current reality directly came to be only shows your scientific illiteracy, not an inherent weakness in any one of these well-tested ideas.
Listen Bill Nye, I wasn't making a conclusive observation on the history of the earth, universe, or life forms. I was posing a question that most people (for the sake of simplicity, not illiteracy) relate to with a single word, "bang." If I need an expert opinion for my next astronomy class, I'll give you ring.
"Exploding" only applies to the Big Bang Theory (and barely at that). Planetary formation and cell formation are radically different and quite complex, as is the Big Bang Theory. Trying to lump them all into one "explosion" from which your current reality directly came to be only shows your scientific illiteracy, not an inherent weakness in any one of these well-tested ideas.
Listen Bill Nye, I wasn't making a conclusive observation on the history of the earth, universe, or life forms. I was posing a question that most people (for the sake of simplicity, not illiteracy) relate to with a single word, "bang." If I need an expert opinion for my next astronomy class, I'll give you ring.
bommai
Sep 12, 04:30 PM
Seems to me this could be done without Apple having to open up Front Row. If Elgato added some sort of "export recording to iTunes Video Library" option (that also deletes the original file after export completes), you could have your stuff recording on your mac and ready to stream to iTV. I'd imagine you could also set up some sort of Smart Playlist in iTunes to show unwatched recordings that carries over to the iTV interface.
I have a Sony HD-DVR I use to pause live HDTV as well as record. While having a Elgato tuner hooked up to the mac and recording programs there and then streaming it to the iTV box is doable, you won't be able to pause live TV. That is the kind of integration Apple needs to bring to the table. Even if they don't want to make this iTV expensive, they should just let you record to your computer from your TV. So the hard drive could be on the computer but the tuner and program selection has to be available on iTV. Almost like VNC.
Another idea is a DVD drive on iTV. This drive should let users play normal DVD as well as iTunes movies bought DVD. The DRM can be maintained by authenicating against the store when you play. This way, normal people can burn their movie purchases to DVD or keep them in their hard drive. Their choice. They could even let iTunes move the movie to a disk to make room. For example, let us say you run out of HD space on your computer that you use to buy movies. Now you tell iTunes to move a movie to a disk. iTunes guides the user to create a DVD backup. Then it automatically makes space on the HD. However, the iTunes library keeps the information about this movie in its database so that it is available through Frontrow on the Mac itself or another device like iTV. When the user tries to play that movie, it says insert the disk. Now the user can insert the disk into iTV and voila play. This is an ideal balance between DRM, online purchases, data backup, etc.
Movie studios don't mind because the DVDs created by iTunes 7 will only play on computers or iTV for which the purchase has been authenticated.
I would assume this box is running an OS smarter than the iPod so it should not be hard to add all these features especially since it is not yet ready!
I have a Sony HD-DVR I use to pause live HDTV as well as record. While having a Elgato tuner hooked up to the mac and recording programs there and then streaming it to the iTV box is doable, you won't be able to pause live TV. That is the kind of integration Apple needs to bring to the table. Even if they don't want to make this iTV expensive, they should just let you record to your computer from your TV. So the hard drive could be on the computer but the tuner and program selection has to be available on iTV. Almost like VNC.
Another idea is a DVD drive on iTV. This drive should let users play normal DVD as well as iTunes movies bought DVD. The DRM can be maintained by authenicating against the store when you play. This way, normal people can burn their movie purchases to DVD or keep them in their hard drive. Their choice. They could even let iTunes move the movie to a disk to make room. For example, let us say you run out of HD space on your computer that you use to buy movies. Now you tell iTunes to move a movie to a disk. iTunes guides the user to create a DVD backup. Then it automatically makes space on the HD. However, the iTunes library keeps the information about this movie in its database so that it is available through Frontrow on the Mac itself or another device like iTV. When the user tries to play that movie, it says insert the disk. Now the user can insert the disk into iTV and voila play. This is an ideal balance between DRM, online purchases, data backup, etc.
Movie studios don't mind because the DVDs created by iTunes 7 will only play on computers or iTV for which the purchase has been authenticated.
I would assume this box is running an OS smarter than the iPod so it should not be hard to add all these features especially since it is not yet ready!
Multimedia
Oct 26, 04:13 PM
I would think the dual quad cores are meant for clientèle a little up market from Adobe users.ROTFLMAO :D :p :) You're breaking my balls Ben.
beg_ne
May 2, 10:44 AM
To the end user it makes no difference. It's fine if you know, but to a novice quickly correcting them on the difference between a virus, a trojan, or whatever else contributes approximately zero percent towards solving the problem.
So what's your solution? Sounds like it's half "LOL Mac fanboiz r stupid" and half "Users are morons so lets keep them uninformed, and complacent on using antivirus software they don't need".
Which would be especially genius advice since this latest malware pretends to be software that will protect their Mac.
I think I like the typical Mac community advice better:
Don't spread FUD about what the actual situation is. Practice safe computing habits like not installing cracked software or special porn codecs. Don't put your administrator password into random app installers that popup. Participate on Mac community sites to stay informed about possible threats.
And finally - Don't install antivirus/malware software for no reason because most of them are **** anyway and will do more bad than good for your Mac.
So what's your solution? Sounds like it's half "LOL Mac fanboiz r stupid" and half "Users are morons so lets keep them uninformed, and complacent on using antivirus software they don't need".
Which would be especially genius advice since this latest malware pretends to be software that will protect their Mac.
I think I like the typical Mac community advice better:
Don't spread FUD about what the actual situation is. Practice safe computing habits like not installing cracked software or special porn codecs. Don't put your administrator password into random app installers that popup. Participate on Mac community sites to stay informed about possible threats.
And finally - Don't install antivirus/malware software for no reason because most of them are **** anyway and will do more bad than good for your Mac.
entatlrg
Mar 13, 02:04 PM
Perfectly fine using the new designs that run safer and can even recycle their own waste. I would not have dismissed the entire car industry just because the early models lacked safety features and had high fatality and breakdown rates. It's early days still for the nuclear power industry. We do need to work on uranium mining and milling practices, however.
Automobile safety features and breakdowns compared to nuclear disaster.
Huh?
Automobile safety features and breakdowns compared to nuclear disaster.
Huh?
