Doctor Q
Mar 18, 05:57 PM
Like, where's my credit for providing Macrumors with the link/story, about 8 hours ago???
Guess that 'DRM' has been stripped....hmmm...the ironyWhat kind of credit do you think you were denied? Most submissions are anonymous and if you submitted this story 8 hours before the time of your post that was still hours after somebody else had submitted the same story.
MacRumors normally gives credit to a member who first provides a story when the member has been identified, but that wasn't the case here.
Guess that 'DRM' has been stripped....hmmm...the ironyWhat kind of credit do you think you were denied? Most submissions are anonymous and if you submitted this story 8 hours before the time of your post that was still hours after somebody else had submitted the same story.
MacRumors normally gives credit to a member who first provides a story when the member has been identified, but that wasn't the case here.
citizenzen
Apr 22, 09:38 PM
... if the person has an epiphany, and then reflects on what just occurred logically, it could still be called proof.
Proof sufficient for their own self, or for those they can convince of it.
Insufficient for those who require some form of evidence.
This same argument has been going on for thousands of years. No one has been able to provide tangible, testable proof that God exists.
No one.
Proof sufficient for their own self, or for those they can convince of it.
Insufficient for those who require some form of evidence.
This same argument has been going on for thousands of years. No one has been able to provide tangible, testable proof that God exists.
No one.
skunk
Apr 27, 09:21 AM
A slight correction: you either believe in the Biblical God and that the Bible is divinely inspired or you believe neither.
You can believe there is a God without believing the Judeo/Christian folklore.
Exactly what I was going to say.
You can believe there is a God without believing the Judeo/Christian folklore.
Exactly what I was going to say.
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 20, 01:10 PM
That's why I'm ripping my DVDs in H.264/AAC instead of the ever-popular DivX/Xvid or any other AVI/Quicktime nightmare. Too many CODECs.
Hmmm, that makes me wonder if iTunes in a later version will be able to rip DVD's as well as Cd's.
Hmmm, that makes me wonder if iTunes in a later version will be able to rip DVD's as well as Cd's.
Applespider
Mar 20, 04:48 PM
The trouble with DRM is that it often affects the average Joe consumer more than it hurts those it's intended to stop.
CDs that don't play in a PC annoy Joe Public who buys a CD and wants to listen to it on his office PC while at work. The guy who planned on pirating it can easily get round the DRM and go on his merry way.
DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.
The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.
CDs that don't play in a PC annoy Joe Public who buys a CD and wants to listen to it on his office PC while at work. The guy who planned on pirating it can easily get round the DRM and go on his merry way.
DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.
The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.
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
Fraaaa
Apr 15, 09:53 AM
So Trevor is for people that consider suicide - yet the video looks much towards LGBT only.
AidenShaw
Jul 13, 09:06 AM
Nope, it doesn't. Besides, I already told you in another thread that Intel agrees with my intrepetation on this matter. The see dual-dual systems as 2-way systems, whereas according to you, they are 4-way systems. Are you saying that Intel does not know what they are doing?
Intel and AMD push hard to make sure that a dual-core processor is *licensed* as a single CPU. This is because there are a lot of big software packages that are priced according to the number of processors, often much more expensive for a 4-way than a 2-way.
The CPU makers wouldn't sell as many multi-core chips if the systems were much more expensive (in TCO) than single-core chips. Therefore they pretend that a "processor" is what can be plugged into a socket. The software sees that there are "physical processors" (a package with pins) and "logical processors" (the CPU that we've been familiar with for decades, which requires SMP hardware capabilities to be useful with 2 or more).
They say that software licensing should consider the *physical* processor count for licensing terms. (For example, XP Home will run SMP on a dual-core, but not on a dual-socket. XP Pro will run 4-way SMP on a dual-socket quad-core, but not on a quad-socket quad-core. Microsoft licensing looks at the number of physical processors, while of course the software runs according to the number of logical processors.)
So, Intel/AMD/MS have an agenda that requires them to distort the meaning of the word "processor". They have to warp the word "processor" to justify the licensing stance.
___________________________________
And, if you're so hung up on the hardware distinctions, consider:
in laden dead in laden group.
in laden group of companies.
osama in laden group. in
Jobs in Saudi Bin Laden Group
in laden group bin laden kush
in laden group of companies.
in laden group.
Bin Laden amp; Co.
Osama in Laden during a
in laden group. in laden
osama in laden group.
![]()
Intel and AMD push hard to make sure that a dual-core processor is *licensed* as a single CPU. This is because there are a lot of big software packages that are priced according to the number of processors, often much more expensive for a 4-way than a 2-way.
The CPU makers wouldn't sell as many multi-core chips if the systems were much more expensive (in TCO) than single-core chips. Therefore they pretend that a "processor" is what can be plugged into a socket. The software sees that there are "physical processors" (a package with pins) and "logical processors" (the CPU that we've been familiar with for decades, which requires SMP hardware capabilities to be useful with 2 or more).
They say that software licensing should consider the *physical* processor count for licensing terms. (For example, XP Home will run SMP on a dual-core, but not on a dual-socket. XP Pro will run 4-way SMP on a dual-socket quad-core, but not on a quad-socket quad-core. Microsoft licensing looks at the number of physical processors, while of course the software runs according to the number of logical processors.)
So, Intel/AMD/MS have an agenda that requires them to distort the meaning of the word "processor". They have to warp the word "processor" to justify the licensing stance.
___________________________________
And, if you're so hung up on the hardware distinctions, consider:
appleguy123
Apr 22, 10:56 PM
On other forums, people complain about the word agnostic.
>agnostic theist- I believe in god, but have no knowledge of him.
>agnostic atheist- I don't belief in god, but I don't claim a special source of knowledge for that disbelief
>gnostic theist-I know that is a god!
>gnostic atheist-I know there is no god with the same degree of certainty that the theist knows there is one.
I don't think that many would call themselves a gnostic atheist, I certainly don't.
>agnostic theist- I believe in god, but have no knowledge of him.
>agnostic atheist- I don't belief in god, but I don't claim a special source of knowledge for that disbelief
>gnostic theist-I know that is a god!
>gnostic atheist-I know there is no god with the same degree of certainty that the theist knows there is one.
I don't think that many would call themselves a gnostic atheist, I certainly don't.
digitalbiker
Aug 29, 11:11 PM
The experts in this area all agree on CO2, caused by oxidation (burning) fossile fuel, is by far the most significant factor in the change of our climate.
This just isn't true!
It depends on which experts you ask. Most classic geophysicists & geologists do not believe man is causing global warming. Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models. But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
This just isn't true!
It depends on which experts you ask. Most classic geophysicists & geologists do not believe man is causing global warming. Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models. But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
Th3Crow
Apr 28, 08:13 PM
Are you? Why do you think Windows 7 sells so well? All Mac users need to buy one.
That's hilarious! Do you really believe that? Half of the people I know started out with Windoze, and have since migrated to Mac. They've never looked back. None of them would think of contaminating their Mac with Winblows. I don't know a single person that started out Mac and moved to PC. Not one. And none of them feel any need to run Windows.
That's hilarious! Do you really believe that? Half of the people I know started out with Windoze, and have since migrated to Mac. They've never looked back. None of them would think of contaminating their Mac with Winblows. I don't know a single person that started out Mac and moved to PC. Not one. And none of them feel any need to run Windows.
zioxide
Mar 13, 09:03 AM
I'd be willing to bet that our crusades for oil have costs thousands of more lives than nuclear power accidents ever have.
hondaboy945
Sep 20, 12:57 AM
I really hope that someone from Apple reads these forums, I am sure it gets back to Apple, anyway I hope they do it right. Or there will be alot of disappointed people and money lost.
Ugg
Apr 15, 12:09 PM
Of course nobody cares about all the straight kids out there that are bullied or at least the media doesn't. Even if they're being called gay because they're not as masculine as society expects but if they're not actually gay then forget it. Those people might as well just kill themselves. At least that's what I've seen from experience.
Can you provide some statistics to back up your claim?
Can you provide some statistics to back up your claim?
CuttyShark
Apr 12, 11:23 PM
A bad workman always blames his tools. ;)
Cheers!!
Cheers!!
Macky-Mac
Apr 27, 01:11 PM
The books were selected nearly unanimously with the exception of a select few books of the bible.
Also, if they were divinely inspired (meaning God went through the trouble of having them written), w......Therefore, you either believe that there is a God and that the Bible is exactly what it is supposed to be, or you believe neither[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Rt&Dzine;12470723]A slight correction: you either believe in the Biblical God and that the Bible is divinely inspired or you believe neither.
You can believe there is a God without believing the Judeo/Christian folklore.
It's entirely possible to believe in the Biblical God without any requirement to believe that the Bible is entirely divinely inspired.
Also, if they were divinely inspired (meaning God went through the trouble of having them written), w......Therefore, you either believe that there is a God and that the Bible is exactly what it is supposed to be, or you believe neither[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Rt&Dzine;12470723]A slight correction: you either believe in the Biblical God and that the Bible is divinely inspired or you believe neither.
You can believe there is a God without believing the Judeo/Christian folklore.
It's entirely possible to believe in the Biblical God without any requirement to believe that the Bible is entirely divinely inspired.
Huntn
Mar 13, 06:34 PM
I think the theory is the amount of solar energy falling on a 10sq mile area could be enough to satisfy our domestic energy needs.
That's different than building a solar power plant and actually harvesting that energy, as solar plants are very inefficient.
They were talking talking about a 100 square mile solar plant. Take this PopSci link (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-06/solar-power) for example. A 20 acre site produces 5 Megawatts. One square mile (640 acres) would provide 160 Megawatts. Ten square miles would provide 16000 Megawatts (16 Gigawatts). The link says the country will need 20 Gigawats by 2050. The worst possible accident in this case does not result in thousands of square miles being permanently (as far as this generation is concerned) contaminated.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
That's different than building a solar power plant and actually harvesting that energy, as solar plants are very inefficient.
They were talking talking about a 100 square mile solar plant. Take this PopSci link (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-06/solar-power) for example. A 20 acre site produces 5 Megawatts. One square mile (640 acres) would provide 160 Megawatts. Ten square miles would provide 16000 Megawatts (16 Gigawatts). The link says the country will need 20 Gigawats by 2050. The worst possible accident in this case does not result in thousands of square miles being permanently (as far as this generation is concerned) contaminated.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
iJohnHenry
Apr 26, 07:45 PM
It's quite possible they are "miraculous" recoveries. "Miraculous' as in exceedingly rare. Gabrielle Giffords survived a point-blank gunshot to the head. Is that the work of divine intervention? Or is it simply a matter that if you shot a number of people in the head, a very small fraction would survive? Likewise, among the millions of people with cancer, it shouldn't come as a surprise to find a small fraction that beat the odds to make a remarkable recovery. If Purell kills 99.99% of bacteria, does that make the .01% of survivors "miracles"?
Yes, Gabrielle was exceeding lucky, nothing more.
People die every day, without divine intervention either way.
The luck of the draw is very real. Believe!!!!
Yes, Gabrielle was exceeding lucky, nothing more.
People die every day, without divine intervention either way.
The luck of the draw is very real. Believe!!!!
AppliedVisual
Oct 21, 12:42 PM
I'm Speechless. All I can think of is "Wow!"
Makes 20" 1600 x 1200 look puny and the 24" 1920 x 1200 modest.
Yep. Now that I've gone with the 30", I feel so cramped on anything smaller. The dual 30" config is awesome... More than enough space to leave all kinds of stuff accessible - it's insanely wonderfully cool.
...Which brings up my little learning experience over the past couple days. I fired up my 30" as the second display on may G5 quad and all was well. But I was starting to have second thoughts about crowding my desk at home. I packed it back up and took it to the office, plugged it in. Came right up, but I couldn't set the resolution on it to anything higher than 1280x800. Hmmm.... Both had the same video card, (or so I thought), both were the same system, the one at the office was manufactured 12/05, the one at home was 10/05. So I try some different software re-installs and whatnot can't figure it out. so I jump online and research until I'm blue... The 7800GT only has a single dual-link DVI port. Weird, I thought it had two? So I packed the monitor back up, took it home to see what was up... Before plugging it into my quad at home, I started to move the system to open it up and noticed the extra fan openign next to the DVI connectors and the round mini-din style connector. WTF! So I popped the lid real quick to make sure I wasn't hallucinating. This system has the FX4500 and I never even noticed until now. I guess I never checked. :o I had to dig out my invoice, it was a refurbished system I bought from a local dealer -- system was a lease return that made it back to them after only 3 months. It supposedly had the 7800GT in it, but nope - FX4500.
Lucky me. :D My resale value on this system just went way up. ;)
How do I look for dead pixels AppliedVisual? Yes I want two. :)
Two kinds of bad pixels usually show on LCD monitors. Dead pixels are pixels that are black and won't do anything, somewhat rare, really. Stuck pixels are pixels where one of the R, G or B elements is "stuck" at a certain color value and won't change. Typically stuck pixels are stuck full-on and will stand out against dark backgrounds. The best way to check for them is to run a full-screen game or program that can show a black background, other color backgrounds can be helful at times too. Stuck pixels will be visible pixels in these situations. Usually, you'll see them when they show up as they do tend to stand out against contrasting backgrounds. Other types of anomalies on these displays are white pixels or sparkles, which can either be static like a dead/stuck pixel or they can move or come and go. These are usually caused by a poor video signal or too much power over the video interface. Sometimes can even be a faulty GPU. Multi-component pixels - where more than just one R, G or B component is stuck on at the same pixel location are often a faulty GPU. But sparkels and multi-component pixels can still be a defective display... I ordered a Dell notebook for an employee a couple years ago and it arrived with hundreds of stuck/multicomp. pixels all around the screen edges. Dell swapped it out, but I know it was caused by the system sitting on a loading dock or in a truck overnight when it got to -25F here. The LCD screen literally froze all around the edges causing irrepairable damage!
The 30" makes such a huge difference in managing windows of different applications simultaneously. I can see why you wanted 2 AV. Tell me, is there a significant improvement inthe design of your 3007 vs the 3005
AFAIK, there never was a 3005 model, only the 3007. Dell didn't announce their 30" display until last December. I ordered mine on Christmas Eve last year and received it the first week of January. It's a 3007 model as well, Rev.A00. The new one is Rev.A02. Both are identical except I find the old one to have a slight tint to the whites. I had to tweak the color profile for the old one a bit to match the new one, but now it's fine. I don't know if it's a difference in revisions or just normal variation between models or what. The difference is slight, and is only noticeable when the two are side by side, which they are. :D On the bright side, with that Dell forum coupon, my new one was nearly $1K cheaper than the first one.
Makes 20" 1600 x 1200 look puny and the 24" 1920 x 1200 modest.
Yep. Now that I've gone with the 30", I feel so cramped on anything smaller. The dual 30" config is awesome... More than enough space to leave all kinds of stuff accessible - it's insanely wonderfully cool.
...Which brings up my little learning experience over the past couple days. I fired up my 30" as the second display on may G5 quad and all was well. But I was starting to have second thoughts about crowding my desk at home. I packed it back up and took it to the office, plugged it in. Came right up, but I couldn't set the resolution on it to anything higher than 1280x800. Hmmm.... Both had the same video card, (or so I thought), both were the same system, the one at the office was manufactured 12/05, the one at home was 10/05. So I try some different software re-installs and whatnot can't figure it out. so I jump online and research until I'm blue... The 7800GT only has a single dual-link DVI port. Weird, I thought it had two? So I packed the monitor back up, took it home to see what was up... Before plugging it into my quad at home, I started to move the system to open it up and noticed the extra fan openign next to the DVI connectors and the round mini-din style connector. WTF! So I popped the lid real quick to make sure I wasn't hallucinating. This system has the FX4500 and I never even noticed until now. I guess I never checked. :o I had to dig out my invoice, it was a refurbished system I bought from a local dealer -- system was a lease return that made it back to them after only 3 months. It supposedly had the 7800GT in it, but nope - FX4500.
Lucky me. :D My resale value on this system just went way up. ;)
How do I look for dead pixels AppliedVisual? Yes I want two. :)
Two kinds of bad pixels usually show on LCD monitors. Dead pixels are pixels that are black and won't do anything, somewhat rare, really. Stuck pixels are pixels where one of the R, G or B elements is "stuck" at a certain color value and won't change. Typically stuck pixels are stuck full-on and will stand out against dark backgrounds. The best way to check for them is to run a full-screen game or program that can show a black background, other color backgrounds can be helful at times too. Stuck pixels will be visible pixels in these situations. Usually, you'll see them when they show up as they do tend to stand out against contrasting backgrounds. Other types of anomalies on these displays are white pixels or sparkles, which can either be static like a dead/stuck pixel or they can move or come and go. These are usually caused by a poor video signal or too much power over the video interface. Sometimes can even be a faulty GPU. Multi-component pixels - where more than just one R, G or B component is stuck on at the same pixel location are often a faulty GPU. But sparkels and multi-component pixels can still be a defective display... I ordered a Dell notebook for an employee a couple years ago and it arrived with hundreds of stuck/multicomp. pixels all around the screen edges. Dell swapped it out, but I know it was caused by the system sitting on a loading dock or in a truck overnight when it got to -25F here. The LCD screen literally froze all around the edges causing irrepairable damage!
The 30" makes such a huge difference in managing windows of different applications simultaneously. I can see why you wanted 2 AV. Tell me, is there a significant improvement inthe design of your 3007 vs the 3005
AFAIK, there never was a 3005 model, only the 3007. Dell didn't announce their 30" display until last December. I ordered mine on Christmas Eve last year and received it the first week of January. It's a 3007 model as well, Rev.A00. The new one is Rev.A02. Both are identical except I find the old one to have a slight tint to the whites. I had to tweak the color profile for the old one a bit to match the new one, but now it's fine. I don't know if it's a difference in revisions or just normal variation between models or what. The difference is slight, and is only noticeable when the two are side by side, which they are. :D On the bright side, with that Dell forum coupon, my new one was nearly $1K cheaper than the first one.
triceretops
Apr 28, 12:32 PM
I'm sure if you rated all the companies on profit, Apple would be #1. Apple's margins are better.:)
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 08:22 AM
What do you mean by entire market? :confused:
Apple leads. The PC you use today runs an OS that got its inspiration from Apple popularizing the GUI in the marketplace. The smart phone you use today gets its design cues from the iPhone.
Apple leads. The PC you use today runs an OS that got its inspiration from Apple popularizing the GUI in the marketplace. The smart phone you use today gets its design cues from the iPhone.
rtdunham
Sep 20, 12:34 PM
Maybe in the future, Apple teams up with Marantz...and other AV surround reciever manufacturers to build ITV inside their receivers? (like some of them already have ipod dock connectors)...The ITV is built inside the AV receiver. And you can use the remote from your receiver the control the new front row.
Nice idea. and car makers could have the iTV built in, so kids or passengers in the back seat could stream video to the car's built-in video system (the link could just as easily be wired, but none of today's iPod-ready cars provide for this video-to-dvd player useability, do they?
Nice idea. and car makers could have the iTV built in, so kids or passengers in the back seat could stream video to the car's built-in video system (the link could just as easily be wired, but none of today's iPod-ready cars provide for this video-to-dvd player useability, do they?
edifyingGerbil
Apr 23, 02:50 PM
The Bible? I don't think I've ever heard of it. :rolleyes: No one can prove the existence of God in any form, let alone some specific God as described in the Bible (a compilation of edited stories mostly derived from hearsay).
You don't understand and you don't seem to want to understand so I'll leave you to it.
You don't understand and you don't seem to want to understand so I'll leave you to it.
arn
Oct 25, 10:27 PM
Intel is really making Apple quick with those revisions...
seems unlikely that Clovertown would replace the current Mac Pros... just add another high end config.
arn
seems unlikely that Clovertown would replace the current Mac Pros... just add another high end config.
arn
