celebrian23
Jun 20, 02:45 PM
me as well
joepunk
Sep 22, 09:09 PM
I'm taking a guess,
folding @ home?
folding @ home?
Old Mac Geezer
Mar 27, 08:12 AM
Motorstorm only got an 8.0 in the latest issue of GameInformer, which is the same as it got in Famitsu when it was released in Japan *WITHOUT* online play. Apparently, Motorstorm isn't that great in spite of what all the Sony fanboys say, even when the online factor is taken into consideration. Does anyone remember how hyped State of Emergency was before it came out?? A week after release and nobody wanted to play it anymore because it was so mind numbingly boring. It dropped into the $9.99 or less bins pretty quick. I think Motorstorm will do the same. Sega Rally and Colin McRae: Dirt are better off roaders anyway.
Spock
Oct 24, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by Quark
iWalk
hahahahaha,
iMac-1GhZ, Lower .mac Price. X-Serve Update. imGone-Human Transportation device
iWalk
hahahahaha,
iMac-1GhZ, Lower .mac Price. X-Serve Update. imGone-Human Transportation device
arn
Aug 27, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by soilchmst
I think Apple may be clearing out the processors to move to quad Power4's with true DDR, terabyte HD's, a bulit in video subsystem from nVida which will come with a free cinema display (to make room for the new 50 HD flat panels) for about 2000 bucks ;)
It's not like Apple is sitting on tons of processors. They buy from Motorola. Motorla may or may not be sitting on processors... but it's non of Apple's concern.
The reason why the 7470 isn't used is that the 7470 is a figment of your imagination. It does not exist.
arn
I think Apple may be clearing out the processors to move to quad Power4's with true DDR, terabyte HD's, a bulit in video subsystem from nVida which will come with a free cinema display (to make room for the new 50 HD flat panels) for about 2000 bucks ;)
It's not like Apple is sitting on tons of processors. They buy from Motorola. Motorla may or may not be sitting on processors... but it's non of Apple's concern.
The reason why the 7470 isn't used is that the 7470 is a figment of your imagination. It does not exist.
arn
neonart
Dec 10, 08:13 AM
Very interesting! I may try this...
Has anyone been able to use it?
Has anyone been able to use it?
TopGear
Oct 25, 06:53 AM
I imagine we'll see disappointment and bitterness all around. And then a few weeks later, redemption and joy. Just your average Apple fan's constant emotional rollercoaster.
macridah
Mar 16, 09:07 AM
nice. I like it. Again, apple must be flattered :D
g30ffr3y
Apr 19, 02:32 PM
OMG... that is so funny... windows really is ripping off apple...
BAD... ugh...
BAD... ugh...
peterparker
Apr 7, 09:06 AM
I'll be there hopefully around 8ish, leaving today and staying in Irving tonight. Mrs. peterparker has a prior engagement so she'll be missing out on this one. See ya there.
GFLPraxis
Mar 17, 10:39 AM
It was a really, really awesome RPG.
I haven't played enough RPGs to brand any Best Ever (and I've heard Final Fantasy VII put up on a pedestal close to Ocarina of Time by some of my FF-crazy friends), but I really liked Super Mario RPG.
I haven't played enough RPGs to brand any Best Ever (and I've heard Final Fantasy VII put up on a pedestal close to Ocarina of Time by some of my FF-crazy friends), but I really liked Super Mario RPG.
d.perel
Mar 19, 07:15 PM
the software would probably go over better if it did not contain the 1st syllable of 'Pirate' or 'Pirating' right before the word music..... :rolleyes:
nagromme
Sep 24, 01:46 PM
Cool. Can I run the AmigaOne OS on my Mac? :)
sikkinixx
Mar 19, 04:55 PM
^"And manhunt screwed up my sex life..made me cut off my dingle"
That assuming he HAD as sex life....
Although why can I see him visting some sleazy red-light district:
"Hmm baby...could ya dress up like Princess Toadstool for me? Yah...ooh...just call me SUPER baby" AWWW :p :( ;) :eek: :o
That assuming he HAD as sex life....
Although why can I see him visting some sleazy red-light district:
"Hmm baby...could ya dress up like Princess Toadstool for me? Yah...ooh...just call me SUPER baby" AWWW :p :( ;) :eek: :o
stoid
Nov 12, 07:25 PM
Since you guys are the vets and have been on the site for awhile, I thought that I would throw this idea out there, and if you all like it maybe arn can implement it on the macrumors website. The buyer's guide is great, but I think that it would be even cooler if it where to include information on Apple and Apple related software release dates in a similar fashion.
If not on the buyer's guide link perhaps a seperate link. I know that software is not updated nearly as regularly as hardware, but I think that it would be really helpful to have a single source detailing previous software updates. What do you guys think? Am I just being silly? Thanks.
If not on the buyer's guide link perhaps a seperate link. I know that software is not updated nearly as regularly as hardware, but I think that it would be really helpful to have a single source detailing previous software updates. What do you guys think? Am I just being silly? Thanks.
dmw007
Jun 11, 09:41 PM
Sorry it took me so long to start folding :(
My PowerMac G5 was delayed by Apple and then creeped like molasses when it finally shipped out from Cupertino.
Anyhow, now my 2.3Ghz DP PowerMac G5 is folding pretty much 24/7. Hope it helps.
My PowerMac G5 was delayed by Apple and then creeped like molasses when it finally shipped out from Cupertino.
Anyhow, now my 2.3Ghz DP PowerMac G5 is folding pretty much 24/7. Hope it helps.
Tim117
Mar 16, 11:54 PM
Starcraft
840quadra
Sep 25, 08:36 PM
I am on an all time low, I currently have Zero macintosh computers folding. My Dual G5 crashes if I have it folding for more then 8 hours, and I won't install it on my ibook for heat reasons.
I need to get my dual G4 back from my friends house, and get my G4 B&W back into the fold. They never crashed, just take a long time to fold.
I need to get my dual G4 back from my friends house, and get my G4 B&W back into the fold. They never crashed, just take a long time to fold.
pvong
Sep 14, 01:24 PM
What's the link? As long as she is not competing against my nephew, I'll give you my vote.
dongmin
Aug 30, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by snoopy
When they write an application in Cocoa, it will only run on OS X, not on a classic Mac OS. That might cut out half their customers today. I think Carbon will be around for several years, in the consumer applications. Now high end products are a different story. Nobody would want to run Shake on OS 9 anyway.
I didn't mean now, obviously, as the great majority of Mac users still boot off OS 9. But in 3 years let's say, I would think that 90% or more would be running OS X.
When they write an application in Cocoa, it will only run on OS X, not on a classic Mac OS. That might cut out half their customers today. I think Carbon will be around for several years, in the consumer applications. Now high end products are a different story. Nobody would want to run Shake on OS 9 anyway.
I didn't mean now, obviously, as the great majority of Mac users still boot off OS 9. But in 3 years let's say, I would think that 90% or more would be running OS X.
madmaxmedia
Feb 15, 03:01 PM
Why would you bother encoding them as WAVs...I mean, the music has already been compressed, so saving it in an uncompressed format is pretty much a waste of 20+MB.
If you're going to burn to CD, then you burn directly from the WAV. Your CD will sound as good as playing the original WMA file. If you re-encode as mp3, then burn to CD you'll have further signal degradation.
If you want to store the music on your computer, you take the slight hit in sound quality and re-encode to mp3 or whatever format you want.
Ive never re-encoded music before, so I don't know how signficant the sound difference is. Of course, the previous crappy Sony players required you to re-encode ALL your music to go on the player... :p
If you're going to burn to CD, then you burn directly from the WAV. Your CD will sound as good as playing the original WMA file. If you re-encode as mp3, then burn to CD you'll have further signal degradation.
If you want to store the music on your computer, you take the slight hit in sound quality and re-encode to mp3 or whatever format you want.
Ive never re-encoded music before, so I don't know how signficant the sound difference is. Of course, the previous crappy Sony players required you to re-encode ALL your music to go on the player... :p
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
Mr. Anderson
Sep 11, 02:54 PM
And what would then be the digital hub? Could you control your tv/stereo with your mac? But an airport card in it some where and its networked?
That would be pretty damn cool......
D
That would be pretty damn cool......
D
EricNau
May 1, 11:34 PM
Probably better suited in this forum...
Windows on the Mac (http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=86)
But yes, it's been discussed before. Potentially, a Windows virus could infect the OS X partition.
Windows on the Mac (http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=86)
But yes, it's been discussed before. Potentially, a Windows virus could infect the OS X partition.
No comments:
Post a Comment