tf23
Sep 12, 08:07 PM
Will it support third party codecs?
Does it have an internal flash drive?
Will I be able to order Music, TV shows and Movies using it?
Do I need a separate computer to use it?
So far, I'm not impressed. How's it different than a media extender?
I would rather have seen a mac mini with core 2 duo, better graphics support, an internal 3.5" hard drive, and HDMI.
Outside codecs are doubtful. It'd support it in that if you convert the media that's encoded with the 3rd party codecs to something quicktime can handle.
Flash drive? *why* would that have any benefit. Too small. Very doubtful.
Ordering from it. Maybe. But then if you have 2 machines that it's pulling content from, which machine actually does the payment, downloading and storing of the file(s)?
A seperate computer? Seemingly, any OSX or Windows machine running iTunes will be what the 'iTV' pulls it's content from. So yes.
What's a 'media extender'?
I would love to know if those who are saying they'd rather have a Mac Mini, rather then an iTV (which would approx cost half what the Mini would) have ever used a Tivo or a ReplayTV. It's the interface that makes both of those what they are, the ease of use. It's what MythTV's always battled. Yes, you may be able to buy a Mini and morph it into an iTV, but at half the price, and having to spend the time dealing with it to make it all work, why bother? About the only justification for buying the Mini instead that I can see is if you don't already have a machine that can run iTunes.
Does it have an internal flash drive?
Will I be able to order Music, TV shows and Movies using it?
Do I need a separate computer to use it?
So far, I'm not impressed. How's it different than a media extender?
I would rather have seen a mac mini with core 2 duo, better graphics support, an internal 3.5" hard drive, and HDMI.
Outside codecs are doubtful. It'd support it in that if you convert the media that's encoded with the 3rd party codecs to something quicktime can handle.
Flash drive? *why* would that have any benefit. Too small. Very doubtful.
Ordering from it. Maybe. But then if you have 2 machines that it's pulling content from, which machine actually does the payment, downloading and storing of the file(s)?
A seperate computer? Seemingly, any OSX or Windows machine running iTunes will be what the 'iTV' pulls it's content from. So yes.
What's a 'media extender'?
I would love to know if those who are saying they'd rather have a Mac Mini, rather then an iTV (which would approx cost half what the Mini would) have ever used a Tivo or a ReplayTV. It's the interface that makes both of those what they are, the ease of use. It's what MythTV's always battled. Yes, you may be able to buy a Mini and morph it into an iTV, but at half the price, and having to spend the time dealing with it to make it all work, why bother? About the only justification for buying the Mini instead that I can see is if you don't already have a machine that can run iTunes.
LaDirection
Apr 15, 09:20 AM
Excellent initiative.
benixau
Oct 12, 03:22 PM
If you want to get exceptional mathematical performance then why are you getting a micro computer???? I cannot out-type my computer and i cannot do mathematical functions fater than it, or even excel with all of its overhead.
BTW, my g4 is soooo slow at doing maths functions that i finished an assignment a whole 5mins ahead of a mate. In excel. these were some serious slowdown stuff, 10 cross-referenced, dependently linked, nested functions sheets. Now my mac only has 2 867s with 256ddr, his p4 2.53 with 512 couldnt beat me, WITH WIN95.
Now any more real world tests you would like????:D
BTW, my g4 is soooo slow at doing maths functions that i finished an assignment a whole 5mins ahead of a mate. In excel. these were some serious slowdown stuff, 10 cross-referenced, dependently linked, nested functions sheets. Now my mac only has 2 867s with 256ddr, his p4 2.53 with 512 couldnt beat me, WITH WIN95.
Now any more real world tests you would like????:D
macenforcer
Jul 12, 12:20 AM
Have fun!
Already am. Thanks. :cool:
Already am. Thanks. :cool:
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
the Rebel
Mar 20, 10:12 PM
Personally, I stand for moral relativism every day. It is more important to me that individuals make decisions based on what they feel - individually - are right and wrong. I am glad that some here believe blindly following the "law" keeps them safe both morally and in the eyes of our fine government.
But let me ask you this... in your soul (if you believe in such things), do you really believe it is "wrong" to purchase a song off the iTMS without DRM? I am all for breaking the "law" as long as you know the consequences.
Those arguing for the supremacy of "laws" over moral reason simply hide the fact that they are dividing humans from one another. If you choose to abide by a law, do so. But do not confuse your knowledge of what the law states with a morally superior stance. Your morals are good for you and no one else.
So if my morality tells me that it is right for me to kill you, then you support my choice to do so?
But let me ask you this... in your soul (if you believe in such things), do you really believe it is "wrong" to purchase a song off the iTMS without DRM? I am all for breaking the "law" as long as you know the consequences.
Those arguing for the supremacy of "laws" over moral reason simply hide the fact that they are dividing humans from one another. If you choose to abide by a law, do so. But do not confuse your knowledge of what the law states with a morally superior stance. Your morals are good for you and no one else.
So if my morality tells me that it is right for me to kill you, then you support my choice to do so?
AlligatorBloodz
Apr 9, 07:32 PM
It's quite obvious what Apple are doing.
They're not going to make a console as such because it's a cumbersome solution. What they'll do is continue to improve and expand their current iOS platform and the games involved.
The "console" solution they're working on is quite simple. Airplay. If the rumours are true about Apple trying to licence the tech and if we go by the relatively cheap Apple TV iteration the future is staring you in the face.
Your iPhone, iPod or iPad will become the console or the controller in the tradition console sense. Games will be sent wirelessly without lag to the TV where others can join in with their own iOS devices. The devices can change depending on the game and the flexibility of the touch screen. Once you've finished you take your iOS device with you and carry on playing on the go.
Apple will never make a traditional games console. It isn't in their DNA to make something so vulgar. They'll simply integrate experiences into a whole. Airplay is the way they'll do it in regards to the TV.
telugu movie wallpapers,
and wallpapers
and wallpapers
jazz, you have a SB wallpaper
Get a free matching wallpaper
Get a free matching wallpaper
Get a free matching wallpaper
Get a free matching wallpaper
Get a free matching wallpaper
Get a free matching wallpaper
the background color of
hair color will take draw
They're not going to make a console as such because it's a cumbersome solution. What they'll do is continue to improve and expand their current iOS platform and the games involved.
The "console" solution they're working on is quite simple. Airplay. If the rumours are true about Apple trying to licence the tech and if we go by the relatively cheap Apple TV iteration the future is staring you in the face.
Your iPhone, iPod or iPad will become the console or the controller in the tradition console sense. Games will be sent wirelessly without lag to the TV where others can join in with their own iOS devices. The devices can change depending on the game and the flexibility of the touch screen. Once you've finished you take your iOS device with you and carry on playing on the go.
Apple will never make a traditional games console. It isn't in their DNA to make something so vulgar. They'll simply integrate experiences into a whole. Airplay is the way they'll do it in regards to the TV.
GGJstudios
Apr 9, 12:52 PM
If we're talking laptops, then depending on the model you buy, some may also have heating issues that other brands will not. If we're talking PC desktops, hopefully you've built your own, but if you didn't you can install more fans, a better heatsink, better thermal paste, etc. without voiding your warranty. Last time I checked, if you open your Mac, it voids your warranty.
The fact that a Mac notebook normally runs high temps is not a flaw, or "issue" or problem. They are designed to run at such temps. The fact that those who are new to Mac are unfamiliar with this doesn't make it a flaw. They just need to adjust their thinking. And no, simply opening a Mac doesn't void the warranty. For example, replacing/updating RAM and hard drives doesn't void the warranty.
The fact that a Mac notebook normally runs high temps is not a flaw, or "issue" or problem. They are designed to run at such temps. The fact that those who are new to Mac are unfamiliar with this doesn't make it a flaw. They just need to adjust their thinking. And no, simply opening a Mac doesn't void the warranty. For example, replacing/updating RAM and hard drives doesn't void the warranty.
baryon
Apr 13, 03:32 AM
Amazing! I love it. This is what Video Editing was in serious need of.
thisisahughes
Apr 8, 10:49 PM
My thoughts exactly. It almost has to be the next step for :apple:
I guess. I figure they will eventually, but I hope Apple releases an actual TV first.
I guess. I figure they will eventually, but I hope Apple releases an actual TV first.
kdarling
Apr 21, 09:01 AM
And a nice Skype app that was able to send your private data out.
You apparently didn't read the article you quoted.
That version of Skype (since fixed) did not itself send any private data, which by the way, it has your permission to access.
It had a bug in the file permissions it used for caching contact etc info, which meant that it was possible for someone to write an app to look at it, since Skype didn't encrypt their cache files. There's no evidence anyone did so, though.
Kind of like how iOS apparently has a bug where our location history is available to anyone who writes an app to look at it.
You apparently didn't read the article you quoted.
That version of Skype (since fixed) did not itself send any private data, which by the way, it has your permission to access.
It had a bug in the file permissions it used for caching contact etc info, which meant that it was possible for someone to write an app to look at it, since Skype didn't encrypt their cache files. There's no evidence anyone did so, though.
Kind of like how iOS apparently has a bug where our location history is available to anyone who writes an app to look at it.
corrado7
May 5, 09:02 PM
I have had ATT for almost three years now - and I haven't had one dropped call.
do you make phone calls?
do you make phone calls?
Mord
Jul 12, 09:12 AM
Okay, people are hyped about the 4 core xeon. But arent we overlooking something here? Arent server processors designed to do substantially different work than desktops? Whats the point in fitting a >1000 dollar processor into a machine that runs photoshop and see it slug away? Im not saying thats the case, but I think its a relevant point and would like to know if anyone knows the answer. If its slower at desktop tasks, than we will be seeing conroes in mac pros. If its faster, then theres a pretty good chance it will fit the highest end one.
now, unless the other chap who said "anything other than woodcrest would be absolutely insulting" knows wc is insanely faster at desktop tasks, I think hes just building some negative hype. Conroes are supposed to outperform by a wide margin everything weve seen so far. Its by no means insulting
it's not slower at desktop tasks, at all.
it uses the same or faster fsb (1066/1333) and the memory is faster but has a slightly higher latency but with an fsb the latency does not have that big of an impact.
xeon 51xx > conroe.
now, unless the other chap who said "anything other than woodcrest would be absolutely insulting" knows wc is insanely faster at desktop tasks, I think hes just building some negative hype. Conroes are supposed to outperform by a wide margin everything weve seen so far. Its by no means insulting
it's not slower at desktop tasks, at all.
it uses the same or faster fsb (1066/1333) and the memory is faster but has a slightly higher latency but with an fsb the latency does not have that big of an impact.
xeon 51xx > conroe.
deconai
Aug 30, 09:53 AM
A few years ago in college, my Geology professor (he works at NASA developing new energy technologies and teaches during the Summer as a side job) told us that Mother Nature is actually the largest contributor to greenhouse gases through the release of methane attributed to volacones. In fact, one volcano puts out more methane gas than the entire USA. Apparently humans are only responsible for a fraction of a percent of the greenhouse gases found in the natural atmosphere.
Face it, global warming is a buzz phrase quickly falling out of fashion. The temperature changes we are experiencing are part of a cycle, nothing more.
The real problem that humans create is the rapid consumption of the earth's natural resources. We need to remember to recriprocate this consumption with preservation.
Face it, global warming is a buzz phrase quickly falling out of fashion. The temperature changes we are experiencing are part of a cycle, nothing more.
The real problem that humans create is the rapid consumption of the earth's natural resources. We need to remember to recriprocate this consumption with preservation.
IntelliUser
Apr 15, 10:23 AM
Whats the line in the sand? Are Gay men, simply men who find other men attractive? Do they share partial brain chemistry similar to a woman? Are some Gay Men "women trapped in men's bodies"? None of the above? We havent walked in their shoes...so defining what IS and ISNT a disease is pretty ignorant. glad we're all talking about these issues though...stay well friend and keep posting! :)
As long as they have a penis, gay men are men. Just like this (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/06/article-0-027FFAE600000578-658_468x657.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1052934/Cat-Man--human-tiger-enjoys-climbing-trees-eats-raw-meat-day.html&usg=__Ab-ZG2dpwk5CloR7Ey8dB0Cy2K4=&h=657&w=468&sz=114&hl=en&start=0&sig2=zhq5-T3iRhJWvKy7Hwtz-A&zoom=1&tbnid=17KAnJDFBLLCWM:&tbnh=156&tbnw=118&ei=VWKoTYalI9Gq8APuw_3LCg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcat%2Bman%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26biw%3D999%26bih%3D1033%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=131&vpy=102&dur=3662&hovh=266&hovw=189&tx=85&ty=130&oei=VWKoTYalI9Gq8APuw_3LCg&page=1&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0) guy is a man, no matter how hard he tries not to be. Thinking otherwise is a sign of delusion, of a mental problem. And psychiatrists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder) agree with that.
As long as they have a penis, gay men are men. Just like this (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/06/article-0-027FFAE600000578-658_468x657.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1052934/Cat-Man--human-tiger-enjoys-climbing-trees-eats-raw-meat-day.html&usg=__Ab-ZG2dpwk5CloR7Ey8dB0Cy2K4=&h=657&w=468&sz=114&hl=en&start=0&sig2=zhq5-T3iRhJWvKy7Hwtz-A&zoom=1&tbnid=17KAnJDFBLLCWM:&tbnh=156&tbnw=118&ei=VWKoTYalI9Gq8APuw_3LCg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcat%2Bman%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26biw%3D999%26bih%3D1033%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=131&vpy=102&dur=3662&hovh=266&hovw=189&tx=85&ty=130&oei=VWKoTYalI9Gq8APuw_3LCg&page=1&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0) guy is a man, no matter how hard he tries not to be. Thinking otherwise is a sign of delusion, of a mental problem. And psychiatrists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder) agree with that.
manman
Mar 18, 01:24 PM
AT&T is not being 'unfair', but nor is tethering 'stealing' lol.
The funny thing is, for all this argument this probably won't lead to anything. The majority of people will keep using whatever method they use to tether and most likely nothing will happen beyond a warning. Whether they're in the right or not, AT&T will get too much **** for 'auto' changing people's plans to a more expensive plan, ESPECIALLY if they are using automated methods to flag this, because as others have pointed out, people the complaints resulting from false positives will be a PR fiasco for them. Just like those stupid notices some people get from their cable companies for downloading certain torrents...everyone was like "They're cracking down!!!" Really? I've never seen one of those in my life, don't know anyone who has personally, and of all the people online I've seen report them I've never heard of anyone having their cable canceled, having any legal issues, etc... Not saying it hasn't happened but it must not have been that big of a crackdown if everyone is still doing it.
Ok, it's not the same because in this case AT&T is out to protect their own interests (as opposed to cable companies protecting the copyrights of others), but I still don't see this putting an end to homebrew tethering methods that let people use the data they purchased as they see fit. Yes it's against TOS, yes AT&T is fully within their rights to try and stop you, but...good luck.
The funny thing is, for all this argument this probably won't lead to anything. The majority of people will keep using whatever method they use to tether and most likely nothing will happen beyond a warning. Whether they're in the right or not, AT&T will get too much **** for 'auto' changing people's plans to a more expensive plan, ESPECIALLY if they are using automated methods to flag this, because as others have pointed out, people the complaints resulting from false positives will be a PR fiasco for them. Just like those stupid notices some people get from their cable companies for downloading certain torrents...everyone was like "They're cracking down!!!" Really? I've never seen one of those in my life, don't know anyone who has personally, and of all the people online I've seen report them I've never heard of anyone having their cable canceled, having any legal issues, etc... Not saying it hasn't happened but it must not have been that big of a crackdown if everyone is still doing it.
Ok, it's not the same because in this case AT&T is out to protect their own interests (as opposed to cable companies protecting the copyrights of others), but I still don't see this putting an end to homebrew tethering methods that let people use the data they purchased as they see fit. Yes it's against TOS, yes AT&T is fully within their rights to try and stop you, but...good luck.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 08:23 AM
Gaming on idevices is for nubes. Live on PS3, Xbox and the future NGP.
Totally agree. The other day I was in the queue at the grocery store and some dude was playing some noob game on his iOS phone... I was like "dude, you should be playing that on a PS3" and he was all "yeah but where would I plug it in and set-up the TV?" and I was like "just use the NGP" and he said "Great, where can I buy that?"
What a d**k he was.
Totally agree. The other day I was in the queue at the grocery store and some dude was playing some noob game on his iOS phone... I was like "dude, you should be playing that on a PS3" and he was all "yeah but where would I plug it in and set-up the TV?" and I was like "just use the NGP" and he said "Great, where can I buy that?"
What a d**k he was.
idea_hamster
May 2, 08:56 AM
So what does this do? What's the effect of the payload?
macfan881
Feb 25, 05:16 PM
This could also be a flaw, I would be really annoyed if I bought the best droid available and then a month later another six of them come out better than mine. A lot of people like buying the best available and then riding it out until the next model is available, but when there phone gets replaced by another 40 phones I am not to sure how people will react.
Its going on now I mean look at the Motorola droid when it first came out. then few months after thats out The Nexus One Incredible etc. This is why i hate this because I'm currently looking at a Droid as my next phone, but with the Nexus one and incredible coming out in March then there's the Droid and Eris too it makes it hard to chose one of these phones.
Its going on now I mean look at the Motorola droid when it first came out. then few months after thats out The Nexus One Incredible etc. This is why i hate this because I'm currently looking at a Droid as my next phone, but with the Nexus one and incredible coming out in March then there's the Droid and Eris too it makes it hard to chose one of these phones.
EricNau
Sep 21, 04:34 PM
Dude. If this is your family, you need to be watching less TV and getting outside more. Or at least stay inside and play board-games with the kids. It's much more fun than vegging out on the couch.
geeze. Yeah, if I watched that much TV, I'd be complaining about the iTS too!
-Clive
It's not.
In my experience, video on demand is exactly what younger kids want. My boys (3 and 5, so not that far off your model family) watch more than their share of TV, but they tend to be quite "clumpy" in what they watch since they've grown up with PVRs all their life, they tend to watch lots of the same show, and rewatch things over and over. For instance tonight we were treated to 3 back-to-back episodes of "The Batman" from a recently released DVD and one episode of "Teen Titans" from the TiVo. I don't have to keep buying those shows, since once purchased or recorded, I have them. Tomorrow will be the younger one's choice, so my guess is we get to watch the Wiggles on DVD for the umpteenth time.
I do buy some shows on DVD of from iTunes just to get them off the PVR, to reward the content provider for things we enjoy, and create some space for new stuff to be recorded. For instance I bought two seasons worth of Dora The Explorer (49 shows) for $60.This works out to an average cost per episode of $1.22. On DVD they sell 4 episodes for $10-$16 which means a minimum cost per episode of $2.50, and up to $4. I no longer have to TiVo these and have them at my fingertips.
You're also still way off on your prices. The "multi-pass" for The Daily Show or Colbert is $9.99 for 16 shows (i.e. 4 weeks Monday-Thursday). You don't pay $2/show for them unless you're a masochist. Note also that you don't pay anything for half of the year since they are in reruns about half the time, so it works out to ~$60/year per show. (BTW What's the third TDS show? I guess I haven't been watching lately. :o)
News and sports are a completely different matter though.
B
You're right, my pricing was way off. When I originally calculated $150/month I was counting hours of TV multiplied by $2. Meaning I forgot to take into account season and multi-passes. Plus, when I was figuring daily shows I forgot to drop the weekends. :o
Either way, I am still willing to bet for a large family, cable is significantly cheaper (especially when you take into account all the TV watched for "background noise" (such as the food network)).
Plus the lack of news and sports and many, many TV shows would be a huge turnoff for a lot of customers.
geeze. Yeah, if I watched that much TV, I'd be complaining about the iTS too!
-Clive
It's not.
In my experience, video on demand is exactly what younger kids want. My boys (3 and 5, so not that far off your model family) watch more than their share of TV, but they tend to be quite "clumpy" in what they watch since they've grown up with PVRs all their life, they tend to watch lots of the same show, and rewatch things over and over. For instance tonight we were treated to 3 back-to-back episodes of "The Batman" from a recently released DVD and one episode of "Teen Titans" from the TiVo. I don't have to keep buying those shows, since once purchased or recorded, I have them. Tomorrow will be the younger one's choice, so my guess is we get to watch the Wiggles on DVD for the umpteenth time.
I do buy some shows on DVD of from iTunes just to get them off the PVR, to reward the content provider for things we enjoy, and create some space for new stuff to be recorded. For instance I bought two seasons worth of Dora The Explorer (49 shows) for $60.This works out to an average cost per episode of $1.22. On DVD they sell 4 episodes for $10-$16 which means a minimum cost per episode of $2.50, and up to $4. I no longer have to TiVo these and have them at my fingertips.
You're also still way off on your prices. The "multi-pass" for The Daily Show or Colbert is $9.99 for 16 shows (i.e. 4 weeks Monday-Thursday). You don't pay $2/show for them unless you're a masochist. Note also that you don't pay anything for half of the year since they are in reruns about half the time, so it works out to ~$60/year per show. (BTW What's the third TDS show? I guess I haven't been watching lately. :o)
News and sports are a completely different matter though.
B
You're right, my pricing was way off. When I originally calculated $150/month I was counting hours of TV multiplied by $2. Meaning I forgot to take into account season and multi-passes. Plus, when I was figuring daily shows I forgot to drop the weekends. :o
Either way, I am still willing to bet for a large family, cable is significantly cheaper (especially when you take into account all the TV watched for "background noise" (such as the food network)).
Plus the lack of news and sports and many, many TV shows would be a huge turnoff for a lot of customers.
i3iz
Sep 26, 02:00 AM
old news...check this webpage:http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6
"We grabbed a pair of 2.4GHz Clovertown samples and tossed them in the system, and to our pleasure, they worked just fine. Our samples used a 1066MHz FSB, although we're expecting the final chip to use a 1333MHz FSB, but the most important part of the test is that all 8 cores were detected and functional. "
"We grabbed a pair of 2.4GHz Clovertown samples and tossed them in the system, and to our pleasure, they worked just fine. Our samples used a 1066MHz FSB, although we're expecting the final chip to use a 1333MHz FSB, but the most important part of the test is that all 8 cores were detected and functional. "
pmz
Mar 18, 09:27 AM
Go look up the words: entitlement, spoiled, ignorance and unfounded :)
What the hell is your problem? AT&T has broken the law. Are you content with that?
Do you think it's appropriate for any company to sell an unlimited service, and make every attempt possible to limit it?
What the hell is your problem? AT&T has broken the law. Are you content with that?
Do you think it's appropriate for any company to sell an unlimited service, and make every attempt possible to limit it?
dragonsbane
Mar 20, 10:04 PM
It nullifies your power to complain. You said, "I don't think this business model is right" in your head, but clicked "I agree to these terms and conditions" anyway. Then you decide that the terms are inconvenient for you. Now you are breaking those terms, which in addition to being illegal on two fronts (copyright law and a legal TOS contract), is breaking your word. There's no way to construe that as morally sound.
Sounds to me like your world falls apart when people disagree with you. A small island you must live on when you know all options open to humans who have the same capacity to reason as you. It must feel good to know you are right. Funny how the same arguments you use have be used throughout history and have ALWAYS been seen as wrong over time. You are Midas yelling at the waves.
Personally, I would prefer to have a bunch of people like you around to check me when I think I know what is right. I am happy to let people see the world from their own vantage without the need to "correct" them. I have no doubt that you will learn that your child will not follow your dictums without question. And here you are, on a forum with adults, and you propose that we simply roll over and agree with you. Pah! Tell us what you think and let us reason for ourselves. The fact that you agree or disagree with an individual is of no importance - except maybe to you.
Sounds to me like your world falls apart when people disagree with you. A small island you must live on when you know all options open to humans who have the same capacity to reason as you. It must feel good to know you are right. Funny how the same arguments you use have be used throughout history and have ALWAYS been seen as wrong over time. You are Midas yelling at the waves.
Personally, I would prefer to have a bunch of people like you around to check me when I think I know what is right. I am happy to let people see the world from their own vantage without the need to "correct" them. I have no doubt that you will learn that your child will not follow your dictums without question. And here you are, on a forum with adults, and you propose that we simply roll over and agree with you. Pah! Tell us what you think and let us reason for ourselves. The fact that you agree or disagree with an individual is of no importance - except maybe to you.
rhuber
Apr 20, 09:30 PM
Look, I have used several android phones due to changing networks a few times over the last year. And I will say this, an Android phone cannot last 2 days even on sleep mode. U put ur phone on ur desk unplugged at night with 100% battery, and by the morning, it will mysteriously go down to 60-70%. And trust me, I know everything about android from rooting, to roms, to kernals, so I know I am not doing anything dumb like leaving bunch of apps open and running.
I can't speak for your experiences, but to say that an android cannot last 2 days is just not accurate. My wife uses a DroidX (the one with the giant bright screen), and yes... she gets two days of use on a charge. And she texts constantly.
I can't speak for your experiences, but to say that an android cannot last 2 days is just not accurate. My wife uses a DroidX (the one with the giant bright screen), and yes... she gets two days of use on a charge. And she texts constantly.
No comments:
Post a Comment