rquick
Aug 25, 02:21 AM
I read through most of these posts and I just have to rant a little. It's funny how the only place that people are unhappy with AT&T; service and the iPhone is in surveys and on these forums. Except for the survey a few weeks back that said AT&T; had the highest approval ratings. It probably depends on how you ask the questions. Nobody asked me, but I have had each model of the iphone and the only time I had a high number of dropped calls was with the 3g right after it was released about 2 years ago. The first major firmware upgrade fixed it and the number of dropped calls fell dramatically. It still had a few, but not to the point of being a problem. That phone is still in use by someone I know and see everyday and they love it. I now have the iphone 4 (since release day) and I can't remember my last dropped call. It has no reception issues at all - if anything it is the best connection and sound I have ever had with a cellphone. I am in Texas where AT&T; rules - it is the old SWB after all and is based in Texas. I haven't had the chance to travel with the 4 yet, but I traveled all over the country with my 3gs and never had a problem. A few spots in the mountains that had no reception at all, but that was true for everyone else there too. Verizon included. I have a close friend whose entire company switched from Verizon and Blackberrys to get iPhones for everyone and they are extremely satisfied. They work all over the country (I mean literally everywhere) and their IT manager told me the cellphone and email related complaints have dropped off dramatically since they dropped Verizon cell phones and their old Blackberrys. That wouldn't be possible if AT&T; was so universally hated. I have to admit though, I'm not positive the BBs were on Verizon but I think so because their cellphones definitely were. They carried both and many of their people were upset at being forced to carry Verizon phones. People just hate to be forced. It seems like a lot of people here say the iPhone won't even work in NY because of AT&T.; My daughter lives in NY and she has had a 3g for 2 years and says she has no issues. Except in the subway. All of her friends use iphones in and around NY and they say they have no issues. Except in the subway. Anyone want to tell me that Verizon works in the subway? Nobody is perfect. And then I see someone on here complaining about the build of the iPhone 4 and I realize again that people are so totally full of crap it's amazing. The one thing no reasonable person can possibly complain about is the design and build quality of the 4 - make believe antenna issues notwithstanding- not without lying through their teeth. The design is absolutely outstanding. I love the glass back and the screen is beautiful. Makes me suspect they have not even had the chance to hold one yet. My daughter has tried to buy one several times in NY over the past few weeks without success because they are still in such extremely high demand. Like they would still be that popular if the service was so pitiful. She told me last week that the shipments are still sold out everyday at her favorite Apple stores. I keep telling her to try an AT&T; store but she likes Apple stores, you know - where they treat her so rudely and don't have anyone helpful. Maybe its all in how YOU treat the people around you. Try saying something nice and maybe the clerk will look up from her ipad next time.
skunk
Apr 27, 01:15 PM
The main argument against the Judaeo-Christian God is: there is evil in the world, God is meant to be all-powerful and all-loving, and all-knowing, yet evil continues unabated.The real point is that the "Judaeo-Christian God" is not Judaeo-Christian at all, but the chief god of the Ugaritic pantheon, and no more "real" than Zeus, Jupiter, Horus or Astarte.
.jpg "Miley-cyrus-hair-color-in-")
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 30, 04:22 AM
Most classic geophysicists & geologists do not believe man is causing global warming.
Absolute nonsense.
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.
You are here talking about the natural oscillation of temperature (see my previuos post) geophysists often talk about which leads to an occasional ice age now then. There is a natural CO2 variation in the atmosphere which have been studied over extremely long periods by studying ice core samples from e.g. Greenland.
Every single well-founded theoretical model over natural CO2 variation model predicts we are outside the natural variation.
That is a fact.
We also know that CO2 is very potent greenhouse effect.
Thus we also know that the earth is getting warmer due to the increased CO2 level.
The increased CO2 level coincides with the industrilization when man began to burn fossile fuel in a historically unprecedented manner.
Mankind is causing the increased CO2 level. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
This can of course not the explain the natural variation of temperature, but the fact remains our activities here in earth is causing an increased temperature.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models.
All scientific models are just theoretical models and can not be prove themselves. (see Gödel 1931)
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.
In consequense of your argument and Gödel, it follows that we never can say anything about science. This is the same argument tobacco lobbyists have been using in defence of cigarettes.
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.
Again, you are talking about natural variations. But again, not a single theretical model predicts the current CO2 level to be natural variation.
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.
No one is claimin
g to have the final model explaining the temperature on earth. Nevertheless, the fact remains, we are outside the natural CO2 level. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. There is a significant lag between the level of CO2 and the temperature on earth. Hence, if we don't do something now it might be late tomorrow. I wrote might, because, as you said, noone knows for sure. But are we really interested in playing dice with our own existence?
Sidenote: In science, the name of the game is getting publications. The sorry fact is that you don't get publications by singing with the choir. Since this debate is considered both important and urgent, it is easier to get a not-so well-founded-model published right now. I have seen crazy ideas published explaining the incrased temperature on earth as cow flatulence and rotting trees at bottoms of lakes (methane gas is also a potent greenhouse gas)
These publications makes it unfortunately even harder to sort out the real facts about this issue which very well might be the most important issue mankind has been faced with here on earth.
Absolute nonsense.
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.
You are here talking about the natural oscillation of temperature (see my previuos post) geophysists often talk about which leads to an occasional ice age now then. There is a natural CO2 variation in the atmosphere which have been studied over extremely long periods by studying ice core samples from e.g. Greenland.
Every single well-founded theoretical model over natural CO2 variation model predicts we are outside the natural variation.
That is a fact.
We also know that CO2 is very potent greenhouse effect.
Thus we also know that the earth is getting warmer due to the increased CO2 level.
The increased CO2 level coincides with the industrilization when man began to burn fossile fuel in a historically unprecedented manner.
Mankind is causing the increased CO2 level. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
This can of course not the explain the natural variation of temperature, but the fact remains our activities here in earth is causing an increased temperature.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models.
All scientific models are just theoretical models and can not be prove themselves. (see Gödel 1931)
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.
In consequense of your argument and Gödel, it follows that we never can say anything about science. This is the same argument tobacco lobbyists have been using in defence of cigarettes.
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.
Again, you are talking about natural variations. But again, not a single theretical model predicts the current CO2 level to be natural variation.
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.
No one is claimin
g to have the final model explaining the temperature on earth. Nevertheless, the fact remains, we are outside the natural CO2 level. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. There is a significant lag between the level of CO2 and the temperature on earth. Hence, if we don't do something now it might be late tomorrow. I wrote might, because, as you said, noone knows for sure. But are we really interested in playing dice with our own existence?
Sidenote: In science, the name of the game is getting publications. The sorry fact is that you don't get publications by singing with the choir. Since this debate is considered both important and urgent, it is easier to get a not-so well-founded-model published right now. I have seen crazy ideas published explaining the incrased temperature on earth as cow flatulence and rotting trees at bottoms of lakes (methane gas is also a potent greenhouse gas)
These publications makes it unfortunately even harder to sort out the real facts about this issue which very well might be the most important issue mankind has been faced with here on earth.
GGJstudios
Apr 10, 12:54 PM
For switchers in particular I do think it is worthwhile to leave the defaults as they are and understand what the defaults are and why before they try to impose something else.
I agree with you, in general principle. When I switched to Mac, I decided to learn the "Mac way" of doing things, rather than trying to make Mac work like Windows. For those who may not have a large or well organized music library, using the defaults may be fine. However, I had spent years building my library, ripping CDs and vinyl records, editing tags. All file names were exactly as I needed them and I had them well organized, much better than iTunes organizes them. For me (and for those who have a very specific music file organization), leaving those boxes unchecked gives us all the advantages of using iTunes, plus the advantages of well-organized music files.
I agree with you, in general principle. When I switched to Mac, I decided to learn the "Mac way" of doing things, rather than trying to make Mac work like Windows. For those who may not have a large or well organized music library, using the defaults may be fine. However, I had spent years building my library, ripping CDs and vinyl records, editing tags. All file names were exactly as I needed them and I had them well organized, much better than iTunes organizes them. For me (and for those who have a very specific music file organization), leaving those boxes unchecked gives us all the advantages of using iTunes, plus the advantages of well-organized music files.
Silentwave
Jul 11, 11:13 PM
Intel Core 2 Duo (Conroe) will launch in 2.66GHz, 2.4GHz, 2.13GHz, and 1.86GHz flavors. With 2.66GHz and 2.4GHz with 4MB shared L2 cache and the 2.13GHz and 1.86GHz models with 2MB shared L2 cache. There will also be a Core 2 Extreme at 2.93GHz with 4MB shared L2 cache. All will run on a 1066MHz frontside bus.
The current list of core 2 microprocessors includes:
Conroe: Core 2 Duo
1066 Mt/S FSB, 4MB L2 cache:
E6600 2.4GHz
E6700 2.66GHz
Release on both: July 27th
Core 2 Extreme
1066mt/s FSB, 4mb L2 cache:
X6800 2.93GHz- July 27th
X6900 3.2GHz (no release date yet, expected by end of 2006)
Allendale: core 2 duo
1066 Mt/S FSB, 2MB L2 cache
E6500 2.4GHz- Q4 2006
E6400 2.13GHz- July 27th
E6300 1.86GHz- July 27th
E6200 1.6GHz- Q4 2006
800Mt/s FSB, 2MB L2 Cache
E4200 1.6GHz- Q4 2006.
The current list of core 2 microprocessors includes:
Conroe: Core 2 Duo
1066 Mt/S FSB, 4MB L2 cache:
E6600 2.4GHz
E6700 2.66GHz
Release on both: July 27th
Core 2 Extreme
1066mt/s FSB, 4mb L2 cache:
X6800 2.93GHz- July 27th
X6900 3.2GHz (no release date yet, expected by end of 2006)
Allendale: core 2 duo
1066 Mt/S FSB, 2MB L2 cache
E6500 2.4GHz- Q4 2006
E6400 2.13GHz- July 27th
E6300 1.86GHz- July 27th
E6200 1.6GHz- Q4 2006
800Mt/s FSB, 2MB L2 Cache
E4200 1.6GHz- Q4 2006.
Aduntu
Apr 22, 10:50 PM
Yes, you did. You lumped up three distinct theories about three different aspects of cosmic, geological, and biological history, all because they were an affront to your beliefs (or to your incredulity, whichever fits better).
"Exploding" only applies to the Big Bang Theory (and barely at that). Planetary formation and cell formation are radically different and quite complex, as is the Big Bang Theory. Trying to lump them all into one "explosion" from which your current reality directly came to be only shows your scientific illiteracy, not an inherent weakness in any one of these well-tested ideas.
Listen Bill Nye, I wasn't making a conclusive observation on the history of the earth, universe, or life forms. I was posing a question that most people (for the sake of simplicity, not illiteracy) relate to with a single word, "bang." If I need an expert opinion for my next astronomy class, I'll give you ring.
"Exploding" only applies to the Big Bang Theory (and barely at that). Planetary formation and cell formation are radically different and quite complex, as is the Big Bang Theory. Trying to lump them all into one "explosion" from which your current reality directly came to be only shows your scientific illiteracy, not an inherent weakness in any one of these well-tested ideas.
Listen Bill Nye, I wasn't making a conclusive observation on the history of the earth, universe, or life forms. I was posing a question that most people (for the sake of simplicity, not illiteracy) relate to with a single word, "bang." If I need an expert opinion for my next astronomy class, I'll give you ring.
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 11:39 PM
Many atheists deny that God exists. Maybe they're right, but their denial implies that theism is either true or else false. If those atheists say that theism is nonsense, what do they mean by "nonsense?" If they mean that theism is neither true nor false, then they imply their denial is neither true nor false, since theism is the belief that at least one God exists, and "There is no God" is the denial of theism. By the law of the excluded middle, every proposition is either true or false, but not both.
I don't think many atheists actually feel that a god absolutely does not exist. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god but most atheists, I believe, are agnostic in the actual existence. While lacking in a belief about a god, most would keep an open mind on the issue or would say it's impossible to know either way.
I don't think many atheists actually feel that a god absolutely does not exist. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god but most atheists, I believe, are agnostic in the actual existence. While lacking in a belief about a god, most would keep an open mind on the issue or would say it's impossible to know either way.
blackstarliner
Sep 21, 03:44 AM
airport express and airtunes allowed streaming content to a stereo. this just adds video function. that's it. if there is a hd it's for buffer and basic OS/ navigation.
still a very cool solution to sending content
yes, but it also may have the functionality to browse and download content directly... maybe
still a very cool solution to sending content
yes, but it also may have the functionality to browse and download content directly... maybe
Lau
Aug 29, 04:52 PM
My point is that Greenpeace would be far better served educating the public how to help. They get even 10% of the world's population to make some radical changes in their lives and
the changes to the planet would be amazing.
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
I'm as guilty as teh next guy. Nothing stopping me from peddling a mile up the street to Trader Joe's tonight for my dinner. Except laziness. :D
It's definitely true that educating people how to (and actually convincing them to) make a difference is incredibly important. And I'm not a huge fan of Greenpeace, but if the figures are true, Apple (along with a lot of other companies could do better, and should.
However, I think environmentalists should be pointing fingers everywhere. At the same time. In my opinion, half the reason we're in this state is people saying "Well, big compainies pollute, so why should I care", "Well, other countries pollute, so there's no point in me bothering", "Well, the supermarket's easier to shop at, so it's not my fault", etc. If we all just got on with it, at the same time, without worrying about whether so and so was better or worse, we'd be a hell of a lot better off.
the changes to the planet would be amazing.
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
I'm as guilty as teh next guy. Nothing stopping me from peddling a mile up the street to Trader Joe's tonight for my dinner. Except laziness. :D
It's definitely true that educating people how to (and actually convincing them to) make a difference is incredibly important. And I'm not a huge fan of Greenpeace, but if the figures are true, Apple (along with a lot of other companies could do better, and should.
However, I think environmentalists should be pointing fingers everywhere. At the same time. In my opinion, half the reason we're in this state is people saying "Well, big compainies pollute, so why should I care", "Well, other countries pollute, so there's no point in me bothering", "Well, the supermarket's easier to shop at, so it's not my fault", etc. If we all just got on with it, at the same time, without worrying about whether so and so was better or worse, we'd be a hell of a lot better off.
munkery
May 3, 12:15 AM
Yes, and that prevents AntiVirus 2010 from successfully collecting credit card info too.
Check out this quote about the latest variant of that Windows malware called Antivirus 2011.
You're blocked from executing anything else, including trying to run your real anti-virus program.
This virus program renders your entire computer useless until you can get it removed. And some of its many variants are becoming immune to existing removal tools.
From here, http://detnews.com/article/20110502/BIZ04/105020317/1013/rss12
BTW, it renders Windows useless by corrupting the registry. No registry in OS X.
Luckily, this type of malware on a Mac is not nearly as bad if your clumsy enough to get infected. You can even remove it from the account that is infected without having to boot into a safe mode.
This post made me have to edit a previous post. Thought I should quote it,
Problems with Windows security in comparison to Mac OS X presented just in this thread:
1) Greater number of privilege escalation vulnerabilities:
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
2) Earlier versions of NT based Windows (Windows XP and earlier) do not use discretionary access controls by default.
3) Permissions system does not include a user defined unique identifier (password) by default. More susceptible to user space exploitation leading to authentication stolen via spoofed prompt that appears unrelated to UAC because password not associated with authentication.
4) Windows sandbox mechanism relies on inherited permissions so that turning off UAC turns off the sandbox. This sandbox has been defeated in the wild (in the last two pwn2owns).
I do not know of any TrustedBSD MAC framework (BSD and Mac sandbox), AppArmor (openSUSE and Ubuntu), or SE Linux (Fedora) mandatory access control escapes? These sandbox mechanisms do not rely on inherited permissions.
5) The Windows registry is a single point of failure that can be leveraged by malware.
Check out this quote about the latest variant of that Windows malware called Antivirus 2011.
You're blocked from executing anything else, including trying to run your real anti-virus program.
This virus program renders your entire computer useless until you can get it removed. And some of its many variants are becoming immune to existing removal tools.
From here, http://detnews.com/article/20110502/BIZ04/105020317/1013/rss12
BTW, it renders Windows useless by corrupting the registry. No registry in OS X.
Luckily, this type of malware on a Mac is not nearly as bad if your clumsy enough to get infected. You can even remove it from the account that is infected without having to boot into a safe mode.
This post made me have to edit a previous post. Thought I should quote it,
Problems with Windows security in comparison to Mac OS X presented just in this thread:
1) Greater number of privilege escalation vulnerabilities:
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
2) Earlier versions of NT based Windows (Windows XP and earlier) do not use discretionary access controls by default.
3) Permissions system does not include a user defined unique identifier (password) by default. More susceptible to user space exploitation leading to authentication stolen via spoofed prompt that appears unrelated to UAC because password not associated with authentication.
4) Windows sandbox mechanism relies on inherited permissions so that turning off UAC turns off the sandbox. This sandbox has been defeated in the wild (in the last two pwn2owns).
I do not know of any TrustedBSD MAC framework (BSD and Mac sandbox), AppArmor (openSUSE and Ubuntu), or SE Linux (Fedora) mandatory access control escapes? These sandbox mechanisms do not rely on inherited permissions.
5) The Windows registry is a single point of failure that can be leveraged by malware.
turbobass
May 2, 02:28 PM
I love how you all pretend like this is the first piece of intrusive software (Malware) for Macs or like there's no such thing as a virus for Mac...
I'll just leave this right here...http://www.clamxav.com/
if anyone knows a better one let me know, thnx.
I'll just leave this right here...http://www.clamxav.com/
if anyone knows a better one let me know, thnx.
lkrupp
Apr 21, 09:03 AM
But just like Windows, it's practically impossible to have any problems unless you do something stupid.
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
Your profile says you joined this forum in 2006. Based on your previous posts that's five straight years of Apple bashing but what do you have to show for it? Apple is more successful than ever so your attempts to somehow influence people against Apple apprear to have failed miserably. That begs the question of why you are still around. Care to respond?
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
Your profile says you joined this forum in 2006. Based on your previous posts that's five straight years of Apple bashing but what do you have to show for it? Apple is more successful than ever so your attempts to somehow influence people against Apple apprear to have failed miserably. That begs the question of why you are still around. Care to respond?
gweedo
Sep 12, 04:51 PM
Does anyone know if Apple will be providing some kind of developer toolkit for this "iTV" device? I sure hope so, I can think of a number of neat ways to put this device to work, not the least of which is a Tivo-like module. :cool:
All in all it sounds like a neat little unit, with an fairly good price. I'll have to buy me a XServe with some XRaid's so I can put my entire DVD library into it. ;)
All in all it sounds like a neat little unit, with an fairly good price. I'll have to buy me a XServe with some XRaid's so I can put my entire DVD library into it. ;)
crazytom
Mar 19, 10:33 PM
Why I don't like copy protection: I would prefer to use the music I purchase in whatever way I want. For those of you who say "If you don't like the scheme, don't buy it" --- I agree, I haven't purchased a single song from iTMS. It's overpriced, second rate quality, and rounded out with restrictions. I'm saying F U to the RIAA. I don't have anything against the artists, but it's a shame they won't ever get my appreciation ($$$) for their creativity and hard work (it's criminal, I tell you...).
DRM only protects the already well
-to-do artists. It's like they have a bucket full of money and they want to keep ANY of it from leaking over the edge...it sure sounds like greed....say, isn't that one of the seven deadly sins? Oh...I'm sorry, maybe that's sounding too 'Robin Hood-ish'. :rolleyes:
Recording engineer Steve Albini spoke a community college and was asked what he thought about sharing music. His response was that it was a great idea; his band got more exposure to a greater number of people because of music sharing. Hmmm....that coming from someone who recorded Nirvana, Cheap Trick, Jesus Lizard, Bush.....
Now, if the RIAA would sell me a piece of music that I could sell back to them (at a discount, of course) because I realized what a piece of crap it was after listening to it 5 times, then we'd be in business!!! Wait...that sounds ~a little~ like Napster's deal (except for the selling it back)...too bad it's PC only. :(
And, I'd just like to say: "Way to go DVD Jon!!! Keep up the good work!!!"
Uh, wait....
From the iTMS TOS:
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.
Oh, crap. Now I'm screwed. I'm a criminal. Canada here I come. :p
DRM only protects the already well
-to-do artists. It's like they have a bucket full of money and they want to keep ANY of it from leaking over the edge...it sure sounds like greed....say, isn't that one of the seven deadly sins? Oh...I'm sorry, maybe that's sounding too 'Robin Hood-ish'. :rolleyes:
Recording engineer Steve Albini spoke a community college and was asked what he thought about sharing music. His response was that it was a great idea; his band got more exposure to a greater number of people because of music sharing. Hmmm....that coming from someone who recorded Nirvana, Cheap Trick, Jesus Lizard, Bush.....
Now, if the RIAA would sell me a piece of music that I could sell back to them (at a discount, of course) because I realized what a piece of crap it was after listening to it 5 times, then we'd be in business!!! Wait...that sounds ~a little~ like Napster's deal (except for the selling it back)...too bad it's PC only. :(
And, I'd just like to say: "Way to go DVD Jon!!! Keep up the good work!!!"
Uh, wait....
From the iTMS TOS:
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.
Oh, crap. Now I'm screwed. I'm a criminal. Canada here I come. :p
gugy
Sep 12, 03:26 PM
I think it's a great device.
The big question is about if the wireless transmission is good enough.
I had Airtunes and it was horrible using it from 40 feet from my computer to my living room. I don't have brick walls.
I guess it's safe now to buy Elgato use as PVR and transmit the show wirelessly to ITV hookup up to my TV.
That's sweet!:)
The big question is about if the wireless transmission is good enough.
I had Airtunes and it was horrible using it from 40 feet from my computer to my living room. I don't have brick walls.
I guess it's safe now to buy Elgato use as PVR and transmit the show wirelessly to ITV hookup up to my TV.
That's sweet!:)
BlizzardBomb
Jul 12, 12:34 AM
If Apple don't do some sort of Mini-tower hopefully one of the slow models (2GHz or slower) would be used as just a dual so we could have a budget PowerMac. Probably not likely, but with customers now able to make direct comparisons with PCs, it makes sense to have a cheap option. Great news though, although most of us knew it was coming.
For those of you who want to speculate:
http://guides.macrumors.com/Woodcrest
For those of you who want to speculate:
http://guides.macrumors.com/Woodcrest
digitalbiker
Sep 12, 04:27 PM
I have seen this stated a few time - but not stated anywhere by apple.
All I picked up form SJ was " we are pleased with the quality"
Brown, colour, cyrus superstar
miley cyrus hair color in
![]()
All I picked up form SJ was " we are pleased with the quality"
Outka5t
Sep 12, 05:10 PM
About 18 months too late but I can't wait for it.
Apple have thought this one through well.
Apple have thought this one through well.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 05:37 PM
If I even dare comment on the last thing, the thread topic will change.
I think it's a bit late to worry about that :D
I think it's a bit late to worry about that :D
Evangelion
Mar 20, 09:44 AM
If you go to a concert, theatre play, any kind of performance or into any of fee-charging class or course and smuggle yourself in through some kind of backdoor without paying for the ticket or the course, did you steal anything?
Not according to your logic.
Should this behaviour be allowed?
So, what did I steal? Steal: To take (the property of another) without right or permission. Note: I'm no saying whether it's right or wrong, I'm merely discussing whether it's stealing or not. The example you gave is not stealing. I did not take anothers property without his permission.
Not according to your logic.
Should this behaviour be allowed?
So, what did I steal? Steal: To take (the property of another) without right or permission. Note: I'm no saying whether it's right or wrong, I'm merely discussing whether it's stealing or not. The example you gave is not stealing. I did not take anothers property without his permission.
Peace
Sep 12, 05:54 PM
To help quell confusion this device WILL be 802.11n
There will be no problem streaming DVD quality or even 720P
There will be no problem streaming DVD quality or even 720P
FX120
Mar 13, 06:22 PM
Maybe I can find a link. I've read (I think it was Popular Science) that a 10 square mile solar farm in the American West could provide enough to power the entire U.S. Now, due to distances, that power could not be transmitted to the East Coast, but it illustrates there are other much safer methods of obtaining power than dealing with the atomic genie.
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.
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.
fpnc
Mar 20, 11:36 PM
I doubt Apple would waste their time and go after and sue the people who used this program and broke the iTunes contract. It seems like a relatively trivial matter. (But after looking at their thinksecret lawsuit, I don't know).
My comments were about the people who wrote the software, not those that just use it. It's the PyMusique programmers that may face legal troubles, while those who merely use the software may or may not face consequences (I suspect that the worse for them might be termination of their iTunes account, in which case they won't have to worry any longer about iTunes DRM).
My comments were about the people who wrote the software, not those that just use it. It's the PyMusique programmers that may face legal troubles, while those who merely use the software may or may not face consequences (I suspect that the worse for them might be termination of their iTunes account, in which case they won't have to worry any longer about iTunes DRM).
peharri
Sep 23, 10:25 AM
Perhaps we've just been exposed to different sources of info. I viewed the sept 12 presentation in its entirety, and have read virtually all the reports and comments on macrumors, appleinsider, think secret, engadget, the wall street journal, and maccentral, among others. It was disney chief bob iger who was quoted saying iTV had a hard driv
e; that was generally interpreted (except by maccentral, which took the statement literally) to mean it had some sort of storage, be it flash or a small HD, and that it would be for buffering/caching to allow streaming of huge files at relatively slow (for the purpose) wireless speeds.
I've read absolutely everything I can too and I have to disagree with you still.
It makes absolutely no sense for Bob Iger to have been told there's "some sort of storage" if this isn't storage in any conventional sense. Storage to a layman means somewhere where you store things, not something transitory used by the machine in a way you can't fathom. So, we have two factors here:
First - Bob's been talking about a hard disk. That absolutely doesn't point at a cache, it's too expensive to be a cache.
Second - Even if Bob got the technology wrong, he's been told the machine has "storage". That's not a term you generally use to mean "transitory storage for temporary objects".
The suggestion Bob's talking about a cache is being made, in my view, because people know it'll need some sort of caching to overcome 802.11/etc temporary bandwidth issues (Hmm. Kind of. You guys do know we're talking about way less bandwidth requirements than a DVD right - and that a DVD-formatted MPEG2 will transmit realtime on an 802.11g link? What's more, for 99% of Internet users, their DSL connection has less bandwidth than their wireless link, even if they're on the other side of the house with someone else's WAN in range and on the same channel. Yes, 802.11 suffers drop-outs, but we're talking about needing seconds worth of video effected, not hours) As such, you're trying to find evidence that it'll deal with caching.
YOU DON'T NEED TO. A few megabytes of RAM is enough to ensure smooth playback will happen. This is a non-problem. Everyone who's going this route is putting way too much thought into designing a solution to something that isn't hard to solve.
Nonetheless, because it's an "issue", everything is being interpreted in that light. If there's "storage", it must be because of caching! Well, in my opinion, if there's storage, it's almost certainly to do with storage. You don't need it for caching.
I'm trying to imagine a conversation with Bob Iger where the issue of flash or hard disk space for caching content to avoid 802.11 issues would come up, and where the word "storage" would be used purely in that context. It's hard. I don't see them talking about caches to Iger. It makes no sense. They might just as well talk about DCT transforms or the Quicktime API.
I'm perfectly willing to be wrong. But i don't think i am. Let's continue reading the reports and revisit this subject here in a day or two.
Sure. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong too. I'm certainly less sure of it than I am of the iPhone rumours being bunk.
Regardless of the truth, I have to say the iTV makes little sense unless, regardless of whether it contains a hard disk or not, it can stream content directly from the iTS. Without the possibility of being used as a computer-less media hub, it becomes an overly expensive and complicated solution for what could more easily be done by making a bolt-on similar to that awful TubePort concept.
I'm 99% sure the machine is intended as an independent hub that can use iTunes libraries on the same network but can also go to the iTS directly and view content straight from there (and possibly other sources, such as Google Video.) I can see why Apple would make that. I can see why it would take a $300 machine to do that and make it practical. I see the importance of the iTS and the potential dangers to it as the cellphone displaces the iPod, and Apple's need to shore it up. I can see studio executives "not getting it" with online movies if those movies can only be seen on laptops, PCs, and iPods.
If Apple does force the thing to need a computer, I think they need to come out with an 'iTunes server' box that can fufill the same role, and it has to be cheap.
e; that was generally interpreted (except by maccentral, which took the statement literally) to mean it had some sort of storage, be it flash or a small HD, and that it would be for buffering/caching to allow streaming of huge files at relatively slow (for the purpose) wireless speeds.
I've read absolutely everything I can too and I have to disagree with you still.
It makes absolutely no sense for Bob Iger to have been told there's "some sort of storage" if this isn't storage in any conventional sense. Storage to a layman means somewhere where you store things, not something transitory used by the machine in a way you can't fathom. So, we have two factors here:
First - Bob's been talking about a hard disk. That absolutely doesn't point at a cache, it's too expensive to be a cache.
Second - Even if Bob got the technology wrong, he's been told the machine has "storage". That's not a term you generally use to mean "transitory storage for temporary objects".
The suggestion Bob's talking about a cache is being made, in my view, because people know it'll need some sort of caching to overcome 802.11/etc temporary bandwidth issues (Hmm. Kind of. You guys do know we're talking about way less bandwidth requirements than a DVD right - and that a DVD-formatted MPEG2 will transmit realtime on an 802.11g link? What's more, for 99% of Internet users, their DSL connection has less bandwidth than their wireless link, even if they're on the other side of the house with someone else's WAN in range and on the same channel. Yes, 802.11 suffers drop-outs, but we're talking about needing seconds worth of video effected, not hours) As such, you're trying to find evidence that it'll deal with caching.
YOU DON'T NEED TO. A few megabytes of RAM is enough to ensure smooth playback will happen. This is a non-problem. Everyone who's going this route is putting way too much thought into designing a solution to something that isn't hard to solve.
Nonetheless, because it's an "issue", everything is being interpreted in that light. If there's "storage", it must be because of caching! Well, in my opinion, if there's storage, it's almost certainly to do with storage. You don't need it for caching.
I'm trying to imagine a conversation with Bob Iger where the issue of flash or hard disk space for caching content to avoid 802.11 issues would come up, and where the word "storage" would be used purely in that context. It's hard. I don't see them talking about caches to Iger. It makes no sense. They might just as well talk about DCT transforms or the Quicktime API.
I'm perfectly willing to be wrong. But i don't think i am. Let's continue reading the reports and revisit this subject here in a day or two.
Sure. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong too. I'm certainly less sure of it than I am of the iPhone rumours being bunk.
Regardless of the truth, I have to say the iTV makes little sense unless, regardless of whether it contains a hard disk or not, it can stream content directly from the iTS. Without the possibility of being used as a computer-less media hub, it becomes an overly expensive and complicated solution for what could more easily be done by making a bolt-on similar to that awful TubePort concept.
I'm 99% sure the machine is intended as an independent hub that can use iTunes libraries on the same network but can also go to the iTS directly and view content straight from there (and possibly other sources, such as Google Video.) I can see why Apple would make that. I can see why it would take a $300 machine to do that and make it practical. I see the importance of the iTS and the potential dangers to it as the cellphone displaces the iPod, and Apple's need to shore it up. I can see studio executives "not getting it" with online movies if those movies can only be seen on laptops, PCs, and iPods.
If Apple does force the thing to need a computer, I think they need to come out with an 'iTunes server' box that can fufill the same role, and it has to be cheap.
