Rt&Dzine
Mar 25, 11:46 PM
The Catholic Church recognizes that people don't choose to be homosexual, however it does recognize that acting on those urges is entirely their choice. Chastity is what they are called to.
That is only if they choose to be Catholic (or other manmade religion with such beliefs). Otherwise, they aren't called to chastity.
That is only if they choose to be Catholic (or other manmade religion with such beliefs). Otherwise, they aren't called to chastity.
CaoCao
Mar 26, 08:37 PM
Poor archbishop Tomasi hasn't been able to accept that the public is increasingly appalled with his church's stance on sex and that the public is increasingly offended by his church's continuing attempts to impose its beliefs on the general public.
We will ride out this storm just as we rode out the last, the one before that etc
We will ride out this storm just as we rode out the last, the one before that etc
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:23 PM
The installer is marked as safe to auto-execute if "open safe files after downloading" is turned on.
This is again just brushing over the issue. You're again not helping. I get all the rest. I even get this part. I want to know more about this part in particular though. What is "an installer" but an executable file and what prevents me from writing "an installer" that does more than just "installing". What is so special about installers that would prevent a malicious payload (without privilege escalation, unless you were to exploit a local privilege escalation bug) from auto-executing ?
This is my point and this is what I'm trying to dissect here. This sentence of yours is the tip of the iceberg. Let's go deeper here. You keep repeating this non-sense that's everywhere on the web and that I've read and told you thousands of times that I understand.
Installers being marked as safe really doesn't increase the likelihood of user level access as the Javascript exploit already provided user level access. I don't understand why you are hung up on this installer being able to auto-execute; it really makes no difference in terms of user level access. The attacker could have deleted your files with just the Javascript exploit.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
Let's face it, auto-downloads are not a Javascript exploit, they're a feature used on many sites these days : "Your download will auto-start in 5 seconds, click here if it doesn't work". It's not uncommon and quite not the issue here.
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
I'm beginning to suspect you don't quite understand what is going on here. I think it's not my technical knowledge that is at issue here, it's your understanding of my point. Again, stop replying to me if all you want to do is discuss the tip of the iceberg covered by the press. I don't care about that, I read that, it raises more questions for me than it answers.
This is again just brushing over the issue. You're again not helping. I get all the rest. I even get this part. I want to know more about this part in particular though. What is "an installer" but an executable file and what prevents me from writing "an installer" that does more than just "installing". What is so special about installers that would prevent a malicious payload (without privilege escalation, unless you were to exploit a local privilege escalation bug) from auto-executing ?
This is my point and this is what I'm trying to dissect here. This sentence of yours is the tip of the iceberg. Let's go deeper here. You keep repeating this non-sense that's everywhere on the web and that I've read and told you thousands of times that I understand.
Installers being marked as safe really doesn't increase the likelihood of user level access as the Javascript exploit already provided user level access. I don't understand why you are hung up on this installer being able to auto-execute; it really makes no difference in terms of user level access. The attacker could have deleted your files with just the Javascript exploit.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
Let's face it, auto-downloads are not a Javascript exploit, they're a feature used on many sites these days : "Your download will auto-start in 5 seconds, click here if it doesn't work". It's not uncommon and quite not the issue here.
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
I'm beginning to suspect you don't quite understand what is going on here. I think it's not my technical knowledge that is at issue here, it's your understanding of my point. Again, stop replying to me if all you want to do is discuss the tip of the iceberg covered by the press. I don't care about that, I read that, it raises more questions for me than it answers.
.jpg "Help Edit Help section")
desdomg
Mar 21, 02:52 AM
I still say **** it and download mp3s - the music catalogue on iTMS is awful anyway. It may be "illegal" but there are lots of illegal things that most people do anyway and the world hasn't come to a stop. In the UK a few years back we had the Tory government introduce a new tax called the Poll Tax. Its introduction caused mass riots and non payment. Eventually the government had no choice but to change the law. We live in a democracy for crying out loud. The way half of you are arguing with your "its illegal" ******** sounds like we live in a corporate state. The music industry needs to be forced to introduce price competition - not force the consumer to pay rediculous prices for a song. $1 is crazy pricing. Let the market decide.
CalBoy
Apr 23, 12:57 AM
No one is concluding that there was a single "bang," and I'm certainly not conflating anything. "Bang" is a metaphor, and no one is relating it to the "origin of life." You're trying inflate your own ego and place your "scientific literacy" on display here by arguing a point that no one is questioning.
You certainly have been dancing around it throughout this thread:
sub zero mortal kombat
sub zero mortal kombat 1.
Mortal Kombat
New Mortal Kombat Trailer
Sub Zero 2 Mortal Kombat by
Previous Mortal Kombat Vs. DC
STEP 3.
classic sub zero mortal kombat
Mortal Kombat Warehouse:
Mortal Kombat as a series.
MORTAL KOMBAT 9 SUB ZERO
mortal kombat 9 sub zero
sub zero mortal kombat legacy.
You certainly have been dancing around it throughout this thread:
archipellago
May 2, 04:28 PM
Well, we have indisputable proof now! :rolleyes:
google...
'windows more secure than OSX'
check the results, you have people who are professional coders telling it how it is... and has been since 2007.
ignorance of facts doesn't equal knowledge, if no one is trying to break the door down you don't need a big lock.
google...
'windows more secure than OSX'
check the results, you have people who are professional coders telling it how it is... and has been since 2007.
ignorance of facts doesn't equal knowledge, if no one is trying to break the door down you don't need a big lock.
alex_ant
Oct 10, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by TheFink
Do you have any pics of your closest attempt at an 8 lb turd?
Yes actually!
Do you have any pics of your closest attempt at an 8 lb turd?
Yes actually!
TangoCharlie
Jul 12, 06:52 AM
Xeon! Conroe (Core 2 Duo)is going in the iMac
No, I believe Apple will pop the Core 2 Duo Merom into the iMac. It's supposedly a drop-in replacement for the current Core Duo processor the iMac currently uses.
Additionally, the Edu-iMac won't be upgraded for a while yet, so that when the new Merom iMac _is_ released (WWDC), there will be a bigger difference between the Edu-iMac and the full iMac.
I'm _sure_ that Apple has a surpise for us wrt the Conroe /Conroe XE CPU.... a nice smallish desktop Mac (we can hope, can't we?) :cool:
No, I believe Apple will pop the Core 2 Duo Merom into the iMac. It's supposedly a drop-in replacement for the current Core Duo processor the iMac currently uses.
Additionally, the Edu-iMac won't be upgraded for a while yet, so that when the new Merom iMac _is_ released (WWDC), there will be a bigger difference between the Edu-iMac and the full iMac.
I'm _sure_ that Apple has a surpise for us wrt the Conroe /Conroe XE CPU.... a nice smallish desktop Mac (we can hope, can't we?) :cool:
Bill McEnaney
Apr 25, 01:27 AM
Well, I am not 100% sure about the non-existence of any given deity, but when it comes to the cobbled-together fairy tale that Christians subscribe to, my certainty-of-BS level goes through the roof. (Jews and Muslims can readily be included as well.)
There a different kinds of certainty: logical certainty and psychological certainty, say. Necessarily, 1 = 1 because 1 != 1 is a self-contradiction. A sound deductive argument proves conclusively that it's conclusion is true. If you affirm the premises of a sound deductive argument while you deny its conclusion, you contradict yourself.
You can be certain, though not absolutely certain, that some scientific theory is true because all your evidence has confirmed it so far. But as I told everyone here, inductive arguments are always inconclusive when they support their conclusions. Although the conclusion may be true, there could always, notice, I say could always be a counter-example to it. A conclusion may be statistically probable enough that you would be unreasonable to doubt it. But probability, at least epistemic probability, is about how strongly an argument's premises support its conclusion if they do support it. Whether you're talking about epistemic probability, statistical probability, or both, some highly probable theories are still false. Given the available evidence, some true theories can be highly improbable. But objectively, a theory's statistical probability is either zero or else it's one. Regardless of degrees of confirmation an argument's conclusion is either true or false. It either conforms to reality or it doesn't conform to reality.
There's merely psychological certainty, too. Imagine that my honorary brother Brian dies. Yes, he's a real person. You show me the death certificate. You show me his tombstone. I see o coroner's report Brian's picture on it. But I delude myself into believing that he's still living. I'm sure he's alive when he is, in fact, dead.
Sydde, I'm sure you don't have merely psychological certainty, the kind of certainty I've described with my hypothetical example about Brian. I don't even know what kind of certainty you have about theistic beliefs you allude to. Yet, if you've misinterpreted some theistic belief, you may only think you're certain that the belief is false.
There a different kinds of certainty: logical certainty and psychological certainty, say. Necessarily, 1 = 1 because 1 != 1 is a self-contradiction. A sound deductive argument proves conclusively that it's conclusion is true. If you affirm the premises of a sound deductive argument while you deny its conclusion, you contradict yourself.
You can be certain, though not absolutely certain, that some scientific theory is true because all your evidence has confirmed it so far. But as I told everyone here, inductive arguments are always inconclusive when they support their conclusions. Although the conclusion may be true, there could always, notice, I say could always be a counter-example to it. A conclusion may be statistically probable enough that you would be unreasonable to doubt it. But probability, at least epistemic probability, is about how strongly an argument's premises support its conclusion if they do support it. Whether you're talking about epistemic probability, statistical probability, or both, some highly probable theories are still false. Given the available evidence, some true theories can be highly improbable. But objectively, a theory's statistical probability is either zero or else it's one. Regardless of degrees of confirmation an argument's conclusion is either true or false. It either conforms to reality or it doesn't conform to reality.
There's merely psychological certainty, too. Imagine that my honorary brother Brian dies. Yes, he's a real person. You show me the death certificate. You show me his tombstone. I see o coroner's report Brian's picture on it. But I delude myself into believing that he's still living. I'm sure he's alive when he is, in fact, dead.
Sydde, I'm sure you don't have merely psychological certainty, the kind of certainty I've described with my hypothetical example about Brian. I don't even know what kind of certainty you have about theistic beliefs you allude to. Yet, if you've misinterpreted some theistic belief, you may only think you're certain that the belief is false.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 22, 09:05 PM
Because the concept of earth and life just happening to explode into existence from nothing comes from logic and reason?
Interesting...
But the idea of some "eternal" God(s) that created the Universe out of nothing comes from logic and reason? And the idea that this God made it so that humans eventually evolved so that they could worship this God(s), comes from logic and reason? And the only reason people believe this is because of an old compiled book of stories that were written by non-witnesses after the stories had been told and retold during ancient times. Is that logic and reason?
Interesting...
But the idea of some "eternal" God(s) that created the Universe out of nothing comes from logic and reason? And the idea that this God made it so that humans eventually evolved so that they could worship this God(s), comes from logic and reason? And the only reason people believe this is because of an old compiled book of stories that were written by non-witnesses after the stories had been told and retold during ancient times. Is that logic and reason?
joemama
Sep 20, 09:21 PM
Is that legal? If it's not - even if it's blurry - Apple won't do it.
-Clive
Umm, it's called a VCR. Do you remember when that was considered illegal when it first came out? Or the cassette tape?
Secondly, if Apple allows you to do that, then you wouldn't buy content from the iTS. That's not what Apple wants.
-Clive
We all know that is Apple's business model right now. What everyone is saying is it is not going to work for the average Joe-American family.
Think about who pays the bills right now and imagine this scenario:
Child:"Hey, dad, can I buy that last 3 episodes of Lost on Itunes?"
Dad:"You mean the same ones that were on the last 3 weeks?..for free?!?"
Child:"Yes, I want to put them on my iPod."
Dad:"The same ones that are already on our DVR that I pay $10 extra a month to have? I think not, my child."
-Clive
Umm, it's called a VCR. Do you remember when that was considered illegal when it first came out? Or the cassette tape?
Secondly, if Apple allows you to do that, then you wouldn't buy content from the iTS. That's not what Apple wants.
-Clive
We all know that is Apple's business model right now. What everyone is saying is it is not going to work for the average Joe-American family.
Think about who pays the bills right now and imagine this scenario:
Child:"Hey, dad, can I buy that last 3 episodes of Lost on Itunes?"
Dad:"You mean the same ones that were on the last 3 weeks?..for free?!?"
Child:"Yes, I want to put them on my iPod."
Dad:"The same ones that are already on our DVR that I pay $10 extra a month to have? I think not, my child."
mkrishnan
Sep 12, 03:45 PM
I guess I could see this supplementing my DVR. My Mac can actually already stream video to my TV wirelessly using my DVR, but the video must be in an MPEG2 format, I believe, which makes the feature fairly limiting.... So I could see it.
I'm not too much of a dinosaur to abandon cable in terms of purchasing content, although it seems like it would be a much tougher sell than, say, abandoning having a landline telephone. I'm not sure about downloading movies. I think I really like the idea, and Apple is on the right track in that it's worth nothing to me without a way to watch on TV.
Anyway, I hope Apple wins with this. :)
BTW this reminds me of something very OT.... I have an iMac G5 rev B, right? It has mini-VGA out. Can it use the S-Video adaptor? If so, I really ought to just get an S-Video out for it and plug it into my TV that way...in my current apartment arrangement, it wouldn't be too much of a nuisance to use wires.
I'm not too much of a dinosaur to abandon cable in terms of purchasing content, although it seems like it would be a much tougher sell than, say, abandoning having a landline telephone. I'm not sure about downloading movies. I think I really like the idea, and Apple is on the right track in that it's worth nothing to me without a way to watch on TV.
Anyway, I hope Apple wins with this. :)
BTW this reminds me of something very OT.... I have an iMac G5 rev B, right? It has mini-VGA out. Can it use the S-Video adaptor? If so, I really ought to just get an S-Video out for it and plug it into my TV that way...in my current apartment arrangement, it wouldn't be too much of a nuisance to use wires.
MacCoaster
Oct 10, 04:03 PM
ddtlm:
Ah, thanks for clarifying.
Ah, thanks for clarifying.
thejadedmonkey
May 2, 10:50 PM
In addition, you have to click through an installer and enter your password then enter your credit card :rolleyes:
Yes, and that prevents AntiVirus 2010 from successfully collecting credit card info too.
Yes, and that prevents AntiVirus 2010 from successfully collecting credit card info too.
samcraig
Mar 18, 12:37 PM
I want that text so I can call them up and lambast the eff out of them.
I'm not jailbroken, I don't tether. But it pisses me off that they are wanting to limit data.
I just checked, my data use per month for the last six months is anywhere from 4GB-7GB a month. Mostly because I stream a radio station. Pandora is better at managing data sending it in packets, this app uses straight streaming.
I'll be staying off my wifi at home and at work.
Ok - so you didn't even get the text. You might never get the text - but yet you're still going to have a tantrum and "teach ATT a lesson" ??? Ok - good luck with that.
I never said anything about it being an accident. I also don't think your argument is "clear" unless you have some kind of internal information that the rest of us don't know about.
If it is really that simple to develop "rules and logic engines" to crack down on tethering, why did it take almost a full year (after introducing tethering) to do it? A logical evaluation of network activity (one that can be done by a computer) works in many cases, but there are always instances where it misses things, or triggers a false alert. AT&T is limited in this regard. I also don't see anything special about the mobile hotspot feature that allows AT&T more access to information that it did not have previously. See the rest of my post.
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
You missed the point of what I said in my post. For one - I explained why they may have waited. Pretty clearly.
I'm guessing a lot of people here are pissing and moaning about something that hasn't even affected them (yet) and might not ever. Which is even sillier. It sounds like very few (if any) on this thread actually GOT the email/txt.
And to reiterate what I said several posts ago (but so few people read full threads...) that I don't agree with ATT charging twice for people on CAPPED plans. If you pay for 2 gigs - you should get 2 gigs - no matter what. It's finite.
But unlimited data is a different matter. And for those that can't understand or see the difference - there's little use in trying to explain it over and over. You don't get it.
I'm not jailbroken, I don't tether. But it pisses me off that they are wanting to limit data.
I just checked, my data use per month for the last six months is anywhere from 4GB-7GB a month. Mostly because I stream a radio station. Pandora is better at managing data sending it in packets, this app uses straight streaming.
I'll be staying off my wifi at home and at work.
Ok - so you didn't even get the text. You might never get the text - but yet you're still going to have a tantrum and "teach ATT a lesson" ??? Ok - good luck with that.
I never said anything about it being an accident. I also don't think your argument is "clear" unless you have some kind of internal information that the rest of us don't know about.
If it is really that simple to develop "rules and logic engines" to crack down on tethering, why did it take almost a full year (after introducing tethering) to do it? A logical evaluation of network activity (one that can be done by a computer) works in many cases, but there are always instances where it misses things, or triggers a false alert. AT&T is limited in this regard. I also don't see anything special about the mobile hotspot feature that allows AT&T more access to information that it did not have previously. See the rest of my post.
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
You missed the point of what I said in my post. For one - I explained why they may have waited. Pretty clearly.
I'm guessing a lot of people here are pissing and moaning about something that hasn't even affected them (yet) and might not ever. Which is even sillier. It sounds like very few (if any) on this thread actually GOT the email/txt.
And to reiterate what I said several posts ago (but so few people read full threads...) that I don't agree with ATT charging twice for people on CAPPED plans. If you pay for 2 gigs - you should get 2 gigs - no matter what. It's finite.
But unlimited data is a different matter. And for those that can't understand or see the difference - there's little use in trying to explain it over and over. You don't get it.
Voltes V
Sep 26, 12:53 AM
start savings and look for stuff to sell.
What the hell am I going to do with 8 cores??? :-D
you can use it to browse the web.............................and all the things you thought impossible, oooops i got overboard. ;)
What the hell am I going to do with 8 cores??? :-D
you can use it to browse the web.............................and all the things you thought impossible, oooops i got overboard. ;)
Evangelion
Jul 12, 02:51 PM
APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.
Yes it would. Ever heard of economies of scale? If Apple told Intel "we want to buy 600.000 Woodcrests from you", they would get a nice discount. Spread that purchase over several different CPU's, and the discount is not that nice anymore. Furtermore, having two different CPU's, two different chipsets and two different types of RAM in single line of computers, is going to make inventory-management and maintentance quite a bit more expensive than having single lineup with one type of compoennts.
Yes it would. Ever heard of economies of scale? If Apple told Intel "we want to buy 600.000 Woodcrests from you", they would get a nice discount. Spread that purchase over several different CPU's, and the discount is not that nice anymore. Furtermore, having two different CPU's, two different chipsets and two different types of RAM in single line of computers, is going to make inventory-management and maintentance quite a bit more expensive than having single lineup with one type of compoennts.
MacRumors
Oct 25, 10:19 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Appleinsider reports (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2176) that Apple is indeed planning on introducing a 8-Core Mac Pro using the Quad-Core Xeon (Clovertown) processors from Intel.
The Mac Pro new system would come with two Quad-core processors and could be released after mid-November of this year. The exact timing of the release is not clear, but must wait for the official release of Clovertown.
As it stands, the release of the eight-core Mac Pro hinges on both Intel and Apple. But following Intel's mid-Nov. quad-core Xeon launch, the ball should be completely on Apple's side of the court. It'll be strictly a marketing decision from there, say insiders, as the Mac maker wrapped up hardware preparations for this brawny beast during the tail-end of the back-to-school season.
Details of the Clovertown processors were revealed in September (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060926002955.shtml), showing two versions of the chip that support the same 1333MHz bus as the Mac Pro. These processors (X5355 and E5345) run at 2.66 and 2.33GHz respectively.
sub zero mortal kombat 3.
Appleinsider reports (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2176) that Apple is indeed planning on introducing a 8-Core Mac Pro using the Quad-Core Xeon (Clovertown) processors from Intel.
The Mac Pro new system would come with two Quad-core processors and could be released after mid-November of this year. The exact timing of the release is not clear, but must wait for the official release of Clovertown.
As it stands, the release of the eight-core Mac Pro hinges on both Intel and Apple. But following Intel's mid-Nov. quad-core Xeon launch, the ball should be completely on Apple's side of the court. It'll be strictly a marketing decision from there, say insiders, as the Mac maker wrapped up hardware preparations for this brawny beast during the tail-end of the back-to-school season.
Details of the Clovertown processors were revealed in September (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060926002955.shtml), showing two versions of the chip that support the same 1333MHz bus as the Mac Pro. These processors (X5355 and E5345) run at 2.66 and 2.33GHz respectively.
appleguy123
Apr 22, 09:39 PM
OP, to back up your hypothesis we would need real percentages of atheists in the MacRumors community and the community at large.
Perhaps the anonymity afforded one on the internets affects how one answers (just like the 16 year old hottie is actually a 45 year old cop).
Perhaps education/enlightenment, long considered the anathema of religion, is at play.
Perhaps a younger demographic here is a factor.
But first, is there a higher percentage of atheists here?
According to the poll which I linked earlier (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1055916&highlight=), about 65% of us are atheist or agnostic.
Perhaps the anonymity afforded one on the internets affects how one answers (just like the 16 year old hottie is actually a 45 year old cop).
Perhaps education/enlightenment, long considered the anathema of religion, is at play.
Perhaps a younger demographic here is a factor.
But first, is there a higher percentage of atheists here?
According to the poll which I linked earlier (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1055916&highlight=), about 65% of us are atheist or agnostic.
Peterkro
Mar 13, 04:56 PM
wind is not considered fine. We can only count on about 30% of it at any one time. Biggest plus they provide us is that it reduces the stress on our other systems. They allow other power planets to run at lower points and not burn as much fuel.
30% is not considered a good back bone.
Energy storage is yes a problem. We can store some but it is not cost effective.
Yes at present, the U.S. for instance could provide reliable wind sources easily all it requires is investment,do you know how much investment would be needed to go nuclear,bloody huge,30% of a huge spread of windfarms would be fine.Plus there are other alternative sources that can make the system more robust,what's needed is a long term fix not short term profits.
30% is not considered a good back bone.
Energy storage is yes a problem. We can store some but it is not cost effective.
Yes at present, the U.S. for instance could provide reliable wind sources easily all it requires is investment,do you know how much investment would be needed to go nuclear,bloody huge,30% of a huge spread of windfarms would be fine.Plus there are other alternative sources that can make the system more robust,what's needed is a long term fix not short term profits.
Sounds Good
Apr 6, 08:22 AM
Good stuff, Spaceman, very helpful.
Question: where can I go online to learn about some of these "more advanced" things? Not just the basic "Why a Mac?" videos, but the good stuff.
Question: where can I go online to learn about some of these "more advanced" things? Not just the basic "Why a Mac?" videos, but the good stuff.
Photics
Apr 9, 09:09 AM
Get off your friggin high horse when saying that App store gaming isn't real gaming.
I liked reading your post. I pretty much agree with you wrote. Heh, I think video games kept me out of trouble too. I also think Nintendo is scared about the falling price of software. That's where their money comes from. For almost three decades, Nintendo has been making a lot of money by releasing consoles to sell their software at a premium.
An excellent example... is Urban Champion on Wiiware really worth $5?
That's madness! A title like that would get crushed on the iTunes App Store.
Although... I think iOS is geared more towards casual games, because that's easier to create on the system. Yet, I'm investing time and money in seeing if there is a market for "hardcore" games. I think there is. That's why I'm building BOT (http://photics.com/bot-game-design-and-progress-reports).
Apple is one step away from crushing Nintendo... that's adding an App Store to the Apple TV.
This hardcore vs. casual debate misses the main point. Nintendo was seen as the more casual of the big three console makers. Yet, Nintendo dominated the first few years of this generation's console war. If Apple enters this arena, it's big trouble for Nintendo... and the other console makers.
Heh, but as a developer, it's really cool for me. Apple has built something amazing here. Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo... they could have made it easier for independent developers, but they didn't. Apple is now in a great position to dramatically change the way the industry works — and I think it's for the better.
I wandered into Best Buy last Christmas season and I saw the game of life in 3D on the XBOX. I thought it was a great way to modernize a classic game. I was getting ready to buy the XBOX 360. But then, lots of great iOS games started going on sale for 99� each. I bought nine... NINE NEW GAMES for less than $10.
If Nintendo doesn't adapt, it could be big trouble for them. I've seen the 3DS (http://photics.com/nintendo-3ds-a-surprising-disappointment) and I'm not impressed. I think the iPhone 4 is a much better portable gaming machine.
I liked reading your post. I pretty much agree with you wrote. Heh, I think video games kept me out of trouble too. I also think Nintendo is scared about the falling price of software. That's where their money comes from. For almost three decades, Nintendo has been making a lot of money by releasing consoles to sell their software at a premium.
An excellent example... is Urban Champion on Wiiware really worth $5?
That's madness! A title like that would get crushed on the iTunes App Store.
Although... I think iOS is geared more towards casual games, because that's easier to create on the system. Yet, I'm investing time and money in seeing if there is a market for "hardcore" games. I think there is. That's why I'm building BOT (http://photics.com/bot-game-design-and-progress-reports).
Apple is one step away from crushing Nintendo... that's adding an App Store to the Apple TV.
This hardcore vs. casual debate misses the main point. Nintendo was seen as the more casual of the big three console makers. Yet, Nintendo dominated the first few years of this generation's console war. If Apple enters this arena, it's big trouble for Nintendo... and the other console makers.
Heh, but as a developer, it's really cool for me. Apple has built something amazing here. Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo... they could have made it easier for independent developers, but they didn't. Apple is now in a great position to dramatically change the way the industry works — and I think it's for the better.
I wandered into Best Buy last Christmas season and I saw the game of life in 3D on the XBOX. I thought it was a great way to modernize a classic game. I was getting ready to buy the XBOX 360. But then, lots of great iOS games started going on sale for 99� each. I bought nine... NINE NEW GAMES for less than $10.
If Nintendo doesn't adapt, it could be big trouble for them. I've seen the 3DS (http://photics.com/nintendo-3ds-a-surprising-disappointment) and I'm not impressed. I think the iPhone 4 is a much better portable gaming machine.
beatle888
Mar 20, 08:24 PM
I think it's a great convenience. I'm just saying that the inevitable wrath-of-God response from Apple is somewhat unwarranted.
somewhat unwarranted? so apple should be passive, lay like a female dog and just take it in submissive glory? i think steves more of a man.
somewhat unwarranted? so apple should be passive, lay like a female dog and just take it in submissive glory? i think steves more of a man.
digitalbiker
Sep 24, 01:50 AM
I'm 99% sure the machine is intended as an independent hub that can use iTunes libraries on the same network but can also go to the iTS directly and view content straight from there (and possibly other sources, such as Google Video.)
You are going to be sorely disappointed then!.
The iTV most definitely requires a computer. The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video. It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV. The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
You are going to be sorely disappointed then!.
The iTV most definitely requires a computer. The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video. It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV. The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
