pdjudd
Oct 7, 11:28 PM
The cell phone market is so sporadic its hard to predict numbers for 1 year in the future, let alone 2 years.
Heck, new phones hit the market pretty regularly - I say at least monthly. Its a fast moving target.
Heck, new phones hit the market pretty regularly - I say at least monthly. Its a fast moving target.
P-Worm
Sep 20, 07:22 AM
Well, the shape of the USB port suggests that it is for attaching another device to the iTV, and not for attaching the iTV to your Mac.
If the iTV doubles-up as an Airport Express, then maybe the USB port is for attaching a printer.
SL
Sorry, I was too vague. I meant that there is a lot of talk about how this thing can't be a DVR because there are only output jacks. I don't see why those component and audio jacks can't be both input and output.
P-Worm
If the iTV doubles-up as an Airport Express, then maybe the USB port is for attaching a printer.
SL
Sorry, I was too vague. I meant that there is a lot of talk about how this thing can't be a DVR because there are only output jacks. I don't see why those component and audio jacks can't be both input and output.
P-Worm
milozauckerman
Jul 12, 08:21 PM
Yeah mister 6" PeeCee, you must've missed where Steve Jobs said something along the lines of, "BMW and Mercedes have about a 14% market share. What's wrong with being a BMW or a Mercedes?"
This is my philosophy as well. I don't drive a Ford. I don't want XP. I don't want an HP. So suck your PC.
There's some irony about your penis envy reference and the rest of this post.
Just sayin'.
This is my philosophy as well. I don't drive a Ford. I don't want XP. I don't want an HP. So suck your PC.
There's some irony about your penis envy reference and the rest of this post.
Just sayin'.
roland.g
Sep 20, 10:10 AM
This is good news. When they announced it, I was pretty convinced they weren't talking about a box that required an additional computer, although USB storage or a dedicated server box seemed likely based upon the absense of evidence for an in-built hard disk.
So it's actually confirmed it can be used standalone. The missing piece is complete. This is iTunes for the rest of us. For those who don't want cable, who want to be able to subscribe to (and fund) specific TV shows and order movies on demand, this is for you. No computer required. Go home, flop on the couch, and watch what you want. Want something more powerful? Well, it'll integrate with your computers and presumably if someone wants to create devices that export iTunes libraries, like some sort of networked DVR, then it'll work with that too.
Wonderful. This deserves to be a success.
what r u talking about
So it's actually confirmed it can be used standalone. The missing piece is complete. This is iTunes for the rest of us. For those who don't want cable, who want to be able to subscribe to (and fund) specific TV shows and order movies on demand, this is for you. No computer required. Go home, flop on the couch, and watch what you want. Want something more powerful? Well, it'll integrate with your computers and presumably if someone wants to create devices that export iTunes libraries, like some sort of networked DVR, then it'll work with that too.
Wonderful. This deserves to be a success.
what r u talking about
Multimedia
Nov 2, 09:00 PM
Don't know if you saw this article, I thought I would provide it for your review.
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 - 2.66 GHz Kentsfield Review (http://reviews.cnet.com/Intel_Core_2_Extreme_QX6700/4505-3086_7-32136314.html?tag=cnetfd.mt)That's Kentsfield so it's a little off topic. But you did the right thing in posting this. Not wrong.
The most interesting thing I find about this article is that Tiger is dumping top Conroe NOW for $974. I love the marketing copy on this page. (http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2341566&Sku=CP1-DUO-X6800&SRCCODE=CNETFEED&CMP=OTC-CNETFEED&ci_srccode=cii_5766179&cpncode=08-15259969-2). :eek: :
"Hurry!!
We're Selling Our Core2 Extreme CPUs at COST.
That's right...we're selling our complete stock of Intel Core2 Extreme processors AT COST! If you've been waiting for a price drop before making a move to the latest in CPU technology, it's time to take action now."
The More The Hype The Better I say.
That leads me to believe now more than ever it's gonna happen from Apple in two weeks. :D
Here's first good picture of 2.66GHz Kentsfield I've come across:
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 - 2.66 GHz Kentsfield Review (http://reviews.cnet.com/Intel_Core_2_Extreme_QX6700/4505-3086_7-32136314.html?tag=cnetfd.mt)That's Kentsfield so it's a little off topic. But you did the right thing in posting this. Not wrong.
The most interesting thing I find about this article is that Tiger is dumping top Conroe NOW for $974. I love the marketing copy on this page. (http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2341566&Sku=CP1-DUO-X6800&SRCCODE=CNETFEED&CMP=OTC-CNETFEED&ci_srccode=cii_5766179&cpncode=08-15259969-2). :eek: :
"Hurry!!
We're Selling Our Core2 Extreme CPUs at COST.
That's right...we're selling our complete stock of Intel Core2 Extreme processors AT COST! If you've been waiting for a price drop before making a move to the latest in CPU technology, it's time to take action now."
The More The Hype The Better I say.
That leads me to believe now more than ever it's gonna happen from Apple in two weeks. :D
Here's first good picture of 2.66GHz Kentsfield I've come across:
TheT
Oct 7, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by gopher
As I've always said, it is in the software!
But Macs look better than most PCs :D
As I've always said, it is in the software!
But Macs look better than most PCs :D
rasmasyean
Mar 11, 04:27 AM
Live Coverage here...
http://www.youtube.com/aljazeeraenglish?feature=ticker
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42025198#42025198
http://www.youtube.com/aljazeeraenglish?feature=ticker
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42025198#42025198
aaronsullivan
Sep 20, 09:15 AM
No tv inputs on the iTV. No DVR capability. Please stop "wishing", "hoping", "suggesting."
Perhaps, a SECOND device could perform this, but it's not what the $300 no service fee device is for. It's for conveniently streaming content from the computer to a TV that can be watched from the couch. It fills the desire of many people, but not all. (Nor should it try to be everything to everyone. That's part of what makes it an Apple product, like it or not.)
Personally, I'm tired of unhooking and re-hooking our laptop to do this and a $300 device to keep things casual and instant looks great to me.
Perhaps, a SECOND device could perform this, but it's not what the $300 no service fee device is for. It's for conveniently streaming content from the computer to a TV that can be watched from the couch. It fills the desire of many people, but not all. (Nor should it try to be everything to everyone. That's part of what makes it an Apple product, like it or not.)
Personally, I'm tired of unhooking and re-hooking our laptop to do this and a $300 device to keep things casual and instant looks great to me.
millerb7
May 2, 10:59 AM
Are you sure that is the end of it, just having safe files checked and this thing installs itself? I'm trying to figure out where this is happening (i tested it myself and all it did was unzip the .zip file, it didn't automatically launch the package installer and then click the Install button for me).
I mean your #1 issue is using safari... it sucks for anything of importance anyways besides random basic surfing.
I mean your #1 issue is using safari... it sucks for anything of importance anyways besides random basic surfing.
needthephone
Apr 21, 06:28 AM
Please explain to me how I am experiencing a "degraded" experience on my current Android phone?
I can do everything your iPhone can, plus tether at no additional cost and download any song I want for free.
Ease of use in Android is just as simple as an iPhone, with the ability to customize IF YOU SO PLEASE.
So if you would, cut the degraded experience crap.
So you can steal artists property. Tell me how you can justify that? Nothing to do with android or ios but please tell me how you can justify stealing. Its the same as going into a shop and taking something. Sure nothing will happen immediately but I guarantee you will pay for it.
I live in a country of excess. Excuse me if I don't weep at night because Kanye West or Lil Wayne are missing out on my $1+ for their songs.
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
Sorry that's like saying I only steal from big manufactures like Heinz or Kellogs.
YOU ARE STILL A THIEF.
I can do everything your iPhone can, plus tether at no additional cost and download any song I want for free.
Ease of use in Android is just as simple as an iPhone, with the ability to customize IF YOU SO PLEASE.
So if you would, cut the degraded experience crap.
So you can steal artists property. Tell me how you can justify that? Nothing to do with android or ios but please tell me how you can justify stealing. Its the same as going into a shop and taking something. Sure nothing will happen immediately but I guarantee you will pay for it.
I live in a country of excess. Excuse me if I don't weep at night because Kanye West or Lil Wayne are missing out on my $1+ for their songs.
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
Sorry that's like saying I only steal from big manufactures like Heinz or Kellogs.
YOU ARE STILL A THIEF.
yg17
Mar 18, 03:02 PM
DRM= digital rights management= copy protection
I'm also quite surprised that Apple DRMs the songs as they are downloaded. All it takes is a hack into the servers housing the music and there goes the neighborhood.
The music has to be stored un-DRMed which is a huge risk for the iTMS or Napster or any other online store. The difference is when it gets the DRM added to it. If it gets the DRM at the server before its sent out for download, then this will solve the problem. But either way, the music has to be stored without any DRM somewhere and hacking into the servers would indeed be trouble
I'm also quite surprised that Apple DRMs the songs as they are downloaded. All it takes is a hack into the servers housing the music and there goes the neighborhood.
The music has to be stored un-DRMed which is a huge risk for the iTMS or Napster or any other online store. The difference is when it gets the DRM added to it. If it gets the DRM at the server before its sent out for download, then this will solve the problem. But either way, the music has to be stored without any DRM somewhere and hacking into the servers would indeed be trouble
Amazing Iceman
Apr 28, 11:20 AM
It's too expensive. as a business, why buy an imac when I could but a dell or hp for a fraction of the price to do the same job?
Please, don't buy Macs for your business. we IT support people love PCs, as these generate a lot of revenue for us.
We love it every time a PC user calls us with problems and we get to charge $100's to solve them.:D
Please, don't buy Macs for your business. we IT support people love PCs, as these generate a lot of revenue for us.
We love it every time a PC user calls us with problems and we get to charge $100's to solve them.:D
Howdr
Mar 18, 01:16 PM
And how do YOU not get the giant paragraph in their TOS that says you can't tether it to another device?? Use all the unlimited data you want on your phone. A judge isn't gonna waive that all away.
............
Grafic F Design Victorian Wallpaper, Style, Texture, Tapeten V034
victorian wallpaper vector.
texture, Tag victorian
Wall Textures, Victorian
victorian wallpaper vector.
Madville Textures - Lilac Victorian Wallpaper Textures. 89108b1edc7184e44152f8bc3614bd4c A6f3e5dd2a457417dd8588d4b656648f
............
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 04:50 PM
I think being Catholic is a psychological problem, but it doesn't mean that I have any desire to deny Catholics the same rights as anyone else.
What rights do you mean: civil ones, merely legal ones, human ones, moral ones, or any combination of these? When I discuss rights with liberal, they seldom say what kinds of rights they're talking about, and they never tell me what a right is as such. Many liberals seem to love ambiguity. Ambiguity confuses me thoroughly. To see why, talk with a few postmodernists who refuse to define their jargon. They refuse to define it because they want to keep reinterpreting it.
This sentence (or phrase) is completely unintelligible.
Sorry, I wrote impulsively and didn't proofread what I wrote. Some here say there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological and/or environmental causes. I think it has both. But it's one thing to say that there's no evidence for what someone believes. It's something else to say that, although there is such evidence, no one has discovered it yet.
What rights do you mean: civil ones, merely legal ones, human ones, moral ones, or any combination of these? When I discuss rights with liberal, they seldom say what kinds of rights they're talking about, and they never tell me what a right is as such. Many liberals seem to love ambiguity. Ambiguity confuses me thoroughly. To see why, talk with a few postmodernists who refuse to define their jargon. They refuse to define it because they want to keep reinterpreting it.
This sentence (or phrase) is completely unintelligible.
Sorry, I wrote impulsively and didn't proofread what I wrote. Some here say there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological and/or environmental causes. I think it has both. But it's one thing to say that there's no evidence for what someone believes. It's something else to say that, although there is such evidence, no one has discovered it yet.
HyperX13
Apr 15, 10:43 AM
Many church groups are trying to take away your our rights. We're just trying to be ourselves. I'm sorry, but I have no respect for any group that wants to take the rights of others. We are not trying to take anything form religious groups that don;t like us, but they are trying to take something form us. Big difference.
Exactly! I agree with you. I am a womanizer and I hate it when a church tells me I can't sleep with a different woman every night! I do plan on switching to polygamy and I hope the government gives me all the rights associated with my switch! Do you think Apple's womanizing employees will put out a video that it will be easier for me?
Exactly! I agree with you. I am a womanizer and I hate it when a church tells me I can't sleep with a different woman every night! I do plan on switching to polygamy and I hope the government gives me all the rights associated with my switch! Do you think Apple's womanizing employees will put out a video that it will be easier for me?
~loserman~
Mar 20, 06:28 PM
It is wrong? How so? If I burn a track for my wedding video, yes, I'm technically breakeing the law, but there is nothing immoral about doing that. No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. He isn't stealing anything. He's breaking a copyright law that makes no sense in that case.
If you add it to your wedding video for your own use then you are not. If you make copies of the video and give them to the wedding guests then you are.
If you add it to your wedding video for your own use then you are not. If you make copies of the video and give them to the wedding guests then you are.
capvideo
Mar 21, 01:37 AM
Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy.
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
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.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
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.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
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.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
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.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
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.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
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.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
Sayer
Apr 15, 09:28 AM
Maybe the parents and teachers could be more effective then ephemeral videos by "concerned celebrities" and tech ppl most didn't know even existed?
And its not just LGBT kids that get bullied, as was seen in that epic take down video from Australia.
THAT video shows how one should handle bullying IMHO. I bet that scrawny lil Jersey Shore wannabe won't mess with that kid anymore.
Weakness attracts aggression, because the aggressors look for weaker targets, because otherwise they get beat down.
And its not just LGBT kids that get bullied, as was seen in that epic take down video from Australia.
THAT video shows how one should handle bullying IMHO. I bet that scrawny lil Jersey Shore wannabe won't mess with that kid anymore.
Weakness attracts aggression, because the aggressors look for weaker targets, because otherwise they get beat down.
UnixMac
Oct 11, 09:04 AM
How does it run on an UltraSparc III 900?
How does it run on an Alpha?
Lets get an assortment of score, there could be a code bug for the G4, I am not an expert, but 10-20 times slower sounds like science fiction.
How does it run on an Alpha?
Lets get an assortment of score, there could be a code bug for the G4, I am not an expert, but 10-20 times slower sounds like science fiction.
DTphonehome
Mar 18, 02:39 PM
might as well ask, other people are probably wondering too... whats DRM?
DRM= digital rights management= copy protection
I'm also quite surprised that Apple DRMs the songs as they are downloaded. All it takes is a hack into the servers housing the music and there goes the neighborhood.
DRM= digital rights management= copy protection
I'm also quite surprised that Apple DRMs the songs as they are downloaded. All it takes is a hack into the servers housing the music and there goes the neighborhood.
skunk
Apr 23, 05:25 PM
I'm not cool enough to be an Atheist... :eek:Give it time.
AidenShaw
Oct 26, 07:04 AM
Now we see what Apple saw - why the Mac Pro is strickly BTO.
Just add two more processor options for the X5355 and E5345, and this upgrade is done.
Just like the Dell online store... ;)
Just add two more processor options for the X5355 and E5345, and this upgrade is done.
Just like the Dell online store... ;)
WiiDSmoker
May 6, 07:21 AM
I'm not letting AT&T off easily, but I still argue that half of the problem is the iPhone itself. When I'm the only person with an iPhone and everyone else around me is on old cell phones on the same network and they have 5 bars and I have no signal, there's a problem.
alex_ant
Oct 7, 04:35 PM
I wish I could leave. Macrumors is to the GPA what the bug zapper is to the fly.
No comments:
Post a Comment