matticus008
Mar 19, 01:29 PM
But can a user be considered to be a party to that agreement if they have not used iTunes to access the store - does the purchasing process still involve an agreement approval stage using this software? Presumably not.
Yes. By signing up for an account to use the iTunes Music Store, you are bound to their terms of service. Those terms only appear in the official iTunes client because that's the only source for the music. Just because those terms don't pop up on the screen if you use this PyMusique thing doesn't mean you aren't responsible for knowing. For example, if you do not receive a bill in the mail for your credit card, you are still responsible for making the payment and paying any late fees--it is your responsibility as the borrower to make the appropriate payment on time. By using the service, you are implicitly agreeing to the terms of service and use, including Apple's rights to prosecute (should they choose to) for your violation of those terms (i.e. using a non-approved client application). This is enforceable; whether Apple chooses to do anything about it remains unclear.
Also enforceable is the DMCA violation (and yes, it is a violation, because you are BYPASSING technology designed to secure DRM). Even though you paid for the songs, you also paid for the license for that song (which includes DRM), and you are breaking encryption by bypassing it. Walking through a hole in a fence is still trespassing, whether you made the hole or not. Again, from a legal perspective, this is a punishable violation.
I'm not saying that I like having my digital music locked down more vigorously than a CD I buy. But there are logical reasons for doing so. Namely, that the digital version, if un-DRMed, can be copied and transmitted with no special software or effort. If I want to share a CD, I have to burn a copy (requiring hardware and software) or extract the audio digitally and transmit it. Digital music does all that for you, and Apple's DRM gives you appropriate fair use rights. The DRM is designed to prevent casual copying that results in lower license sales.
You don't own the music you've bought, and you don't have any legal right to redistribute it because your license does not allow it. Should you be able to use it on any type of device you choose? Yes. Does DRM prevent that from happening? Often, also yes. Can you choose a different format that works with all devices (standard MP3 imported from a CD)? Yeah, but not on purchased iTunes music. Until DRM and file format technology becomes standardized, you have to deal with "early adopter syndrome" in a volatile market, which can result in purchases not being universally compatible (betamax/VHS/laser disc/DVD anyone?). Make a choice that works for you.
By purchasing AAC with Apple's DRM, you are choosing a file format with known and public limitations that will only work with a specific combination of hardware and software. You chose the delivery platform; you can't buy Windows software and then complain that it doesn't work on your Mac without buying it again. That's the way business works. Of course it would be fantastic if buying a license of Office for my PC gave me a corresponding license for all the other computer platforms I use, but that's not the case. Even say, Dreamweaver, which gives you Mac and PC installers, is only licensed to be used on one of the computers. I can install it on both, but that doesn't make it right or legal, even if I think that Macromedia is horrible (which I do).
In conclusion, breaking or bypassing DRM, while understandable on a basic level for getting compatibility with everything, is against the law. Using tools to do this which violate the iTMS terms of service is also a legal violation. The best way out of this situation is to support a universal standard that ensures compatibility with all devices and file formats. DRM isn't going away, and it shouldn't. But it should also not work against honest customers who just want iTunes songs to play on their Rio. Long post, my apologies.
Yes. By signing up for an account to use the iTunes Music Store, you are bound to their terms of service. Those terms only appear in the official iTunes client because that's the only source for the music. Just because those terms don't pop up on the screen if you use this PyMusique thing doesn't mean you aren't responsible for knowing. For example, if you do not receive a bill in the mail for your credit card, you are still responsible for making the payment and paying any late fees--it is your responsibility as the borrower to make the appropriate payment on time. By using the service, you are implicitly agreeing to the terms of service and use, including Apple's rights to prosecute (should they choose to) for your violation of those terms (i.e. using a non-approved client application). This is enforceable; whether Apple chooses to do anything about it remains unclear.
Also enforceable is the DMCA violation (and yes, it is a violation, because you are BYPASSING technology designed to secure DRM). Even though you paid for the songs, you also paid for the license for that song (which includes DRM), and you are breaking encryption by bypassing it. Walking through a hole in a fence is still trespassing, whether you made the hole or not. Again, from a legal perspective, this is a punishable violation.
I'm not saying that I like having my digital music locked down more vigorously than a CD I buy. But there are logical reasons for doing so. Namely, that the digital version, if un-DRMed, can be copied and transmitted with no special software or effort. If I want to share a CD, I have to burn a copy (requiring hardware and software) or extract the audio digitally and transmit it. Digital music does all that for you, and Apple's DRM gives you appropriate fair use rights. The DRM is designed to prevent casual copying that results in lower license sales.
You don't own the music you've bought, and you don't have any legal right to redistribute it because your license does not allow it. Should you be able to use it on any type of device you choose? Yes. Does DRM prevent that from happening? Often, also yes. Can you choose a different format that works with all devices (standard MP3 imported from a CD)? Yeah, but not on purchased iTunes music. Until DRM and file format technology becomes standardized, you have to deal with "early adopter syndrome" in a volatile market, which can result in purchases not being universally compatible (betamax/VHS/laser disc/DVD anyone?). Make a choice that works for you.
By purchasing AAC with Apple's DRM, you are choosing a file format with known and public limitations that will only work with a specific combination of hardware and software. You chose the delivery platform; you can't buy Windows software and then complain that it doesn't work on your Mac without buying it again. That's the way business works. Of course it would be fantastic if buying a license of Office for my PC gave me a corresponding license for all the other computer platforms I use, but that's not the case. Even say, Dreamweaver, which gives you Mac and PC installers, is only licensed to be used on one of the computers. I can install it on both, but that doesn't make it right or legal, even if I think that Macromedia is horrible (which I do).
In conclusion, breaking or bypassing DRM, while understandable on a basic level for getting compatibility with everything, is against the law. Using tools to do this which violate the iTMS terms of service is also a legal violation. The best way out of this situation is to support a universal standard that ensures compatibility with all devices and file formats. DRM isn't going away, and it shouldn't. But it should also not work against honest customers who just want iTunes songs to play on their Rio. Long post, my apologies.
bobbleheadbob
Apr 9, 10:28 AM
I'd love for Pokemon to be on iOS devices.
My kids would love that, too. Only problem would be trying to get my iPhone or iPad away from them! ;)
My kids would love that, too. Only problem would be trying to get my iPhone or iPad away from them! ;)
Tonepoet
Apr 15, 09:43 AM
It'd have been nice if these people could've been identified near the end of the video with their names and what they do around the time they were saying it got better. "Bill Gates, C.E.O. of Microsoft, World's Richest Man" is the sorta man you might not have such a hard time shaping your life after. Otherwise these people seem to be nothing but strangers which seems to me to be not quite so helpful with the more sensitive areas in life.
I'm not saying they have to be all have to be successful/celebrities in order for it to be helpful and it'd be best if they weren't, to show that it can get better for people of all walks of life. It's just my own opinion, however meaningful life advice is most effective from somebody who actually means something to you.
Another key issue is not being identified in any way shape or form makes it seem like they don't want to make themselves known, which actually sets a bad example if the end goal is encouraging people to come out of the closet and just be themselves.
Oooor perhaps I'm just being nitpicky... I dunno.
I'm not saying they have to be all have to be successful/celebrities in order for it to be helpful and it'd be best if they weren't, to show that it can get better for people of all walks of life. It's just my own opinion, however meaningful life advice is most effective from somebody who actually means something to you.
Another key issue is not being identified in any way shape or form makes it seem like they don't want to make themselves known, which actually sets a bad example if the end goal is encouraging people to come out of the closet and just be themselves.
Oooor perhaps I'm just being nitpicky... I dunno.
Mal
Apr 5, 08:05 PM
One off the top of my head is that everything costs money application wise, there is very little freeware.
Actually, I have rarely been unable to find freeware, usually open source, that cannot more than meet my needs. That doesn't mean there isn't something paid that would have more polish and be easier to deal with, but there's certainly no lack of free software on the Mac.
I guess I should clarify here that I'm not technically a switcher. Last time I used a PC for personal use was when I was about 8.
jW
Actually, I have rarely been unable to find freeware, usually open source, that cannot more than meet my needs. That doesn't mean there isn't something paid that would have more polish and be easier to deal with, but there's certainly no lack of free software on the Mac.
I guess I should clarify here that I'm not technically a switcher. Last time I used a PC for personal use was when I was about 8.
jW
Love
Apr 22, 10:02 PM
They think they don't need to back up their points with Reason or facts so it's a kind of intellectual laziness which compels most people.
Really? That actually sounds like a Christian thing to do, morelike. Just say "because God made it that way" to anything they don't understand.
Really? That actually sounds like a Christian thing to do, morelike. Just say "because God made it that way" to anything they don't understand.
blastvurt
Apr 28, 09:57 AM
I just think Apple is making a mistake by not making some low end machines.
I know many here go OMG SHOCK HORROR about anything not made from Aluminium and Unicorn Horn Dust, but in reality, it would pay them, long term to make some nice looking plastic low end machines.
You can make plastic and metal trim things still have a nice finish.
Families walk into stores in the UK, I'm not sure about the US and look at the vast, and I mean VAST array of nice, in their mind, looking PC Laptops, perhaps to buy one for the wife, or one for the kids at school. They may walk past the small Apple table, see the near �1000 price tag, and think, yeah, right, like we're going to get one of those. I could get two good spec'd windows Laptops for that price.
I know people here will disagree as many are in a different wage bracket to "normal consumers" but I can tell you, most people are not going to throw down a grand for a computer for the kids to take to school.
As the only REAL difference between a PC and a Mac these days is the OS it's running, there is no reason Apple could not make a laptop directly at the price point of a medium to low end Windows laptop and then, people may buy them, and perhaps get used to OS X and in years to come go for an iMac.
When you head to the lower end of the market in terms of price, the margins tend to get slimmer, when looking at Apple's pricing and product designs it suggests its not how they operate.
I know many here go OMG SHOCK HORROR about anything not made from Aluminium and Unicorn Horn Dust, but in reality, it would pay them, long term to make some nice looking plastic low end machines.
You can make plastic and metal trim things still have a nice finish.
Families walk into stores in the UK, I'm not sure about the US and look at the vast, and I mean VAST array of nice, in their mind, looking PC Laptops, perhaps to buy one for the wife, or one for the kids at school. They may walk past the small Apple table, see the near �1000 price tag, and think, yeah, right, like we're going to get one of those. I could get two good spec'd windows Laptops for that price.
I know people here will disagree as many are in a different wage bracket to "normal consumers" but I can tell you, most people are not going to throw down a grand for a computer for the kids to take to school.
As the only REAL difference between a PC and a Mac these days is the OS it's running, there is no reason Apple could not make a laptop directly at the price point of a medium to low end Windows laptop and then, people may buy them, and perhaps get used to OS X and in years to come go for an iMac.
When you head to the lower end of the market in terms of price, the margins tend to get slimmer, when looking at Apple's pricing and product designs it suggests its not how they operate.
markcres
May 2, 10:52 AM
What an amazing coincidence this is being publicised by Intego...who just happen to sell AV software!
Lord Blackadder
Mar 14, 04:53 PM
The U.S. is proving to be the worst thing to happen to Mother Earth since the inception of time.
...until the next global power comes along.
I'm kinda dumbfounded that electrical use in the US would be climbing when:
Modern lightbulbs and computers don't use much energy, my laptop and a single energy efficient light bulb probably use less energy than just a incandescent light bulb from 20 years ago.
Indeed. You can power several compact fluorescent lights and a smaller laptop using the same amount of electricity as one 40 or 60 watt bulb. But 20 years ago we didn't all have laptops, cell phones, and other electronic devices - or as many people using them.
...until the next global power comes along.
I'm kinda dumbfounded that electrical use in the US would be climbing when:
Modern lightbulbs and computers don't use much energy, my laptop and a single energy efficient light bulb probably use less energy than just a incandescent light bulb from 20 years ago.
Indeed. You can power several compact fluorescent lights and a smaller laptop using the same amount of electricity as one 40 or 60 watt bulb. But 20 years ago we didn't all have laptops, cell phones, and other electronic devices - or as many people using them.
*LTD*
May 2, 10:30 AM
So that brings the grand total to what, 3 pieces of malware in the wild since 2001?
And still no viruses.
Nothing to see here. Again.
And still no viruses.
Nothing to see here. Again.
Th3Crow
Apr 21, 09:13 AM
Interesting and "generic" use by Apple execs. This could be used against them, as compared to saying that our "App Store" is the largest of any of the available applications stores. Subtle, but significant.
Oooooh...quite right. A very astute observation.
Oooooh...quite right. A very astute observation.
jonnyb
Apr 15, 09:10 AM
Personally, I think it's great. However, they should be careful. Moves like this have the potential to alienate customers. That said, props to the employees.
If they alienate customers who think bullying people into suicidal depression is a good thing, then great.
If they alienate customers who think bullying people into suicidal depression is a good thing, then great.
Cromulent
Mar 27, 04:40 PM
And maybe you need to learn that when you reiterate a point that has already been made in the form of a "why not" question, you are viewed to be supporting the point. I have followed the thread, and I saw the point you were quoting.
That the Catholics believe this bit about celibacy has been apparent for a few pages - there was never any need for you to regurgitate the point. But now that you apparently have, and have assigned some sort of logic to it, I'm asking what is that logic. What reasons that apply to a priest being celibate might apply to a gay person?
You seem to be trying to defend everything about your post but the only issue anyone could ever have with it.
You are constantly missing the point. Someone said it was horrible to expect someone to be celibate just because they were gay. I simply stated that if Catholics already expected priests to be celibate then why is it so hard for gay people to remain celibate?
I mean its not like they are saying only homosexuals must be celibate if they also require their own priests to be celibate. That was the only point I was making. It seemed pretty clear given the quoted text in my very first post.
If you are saying that it makes any kind of sense, I'll ask you again, "why?"
I guess you'll have to ask a Catholic why they would require celibacy of a homosexual. I was simply pointing out that celibacy in the Catholic church was an accepted practice and not looked at in quite the same way as non-Catholic people and not as horrible as the person I originally quoted was making out. After all if a priest can cope why can't a homosexual?
Anyway I'm not entirely sure why I let myself get dragged into this after what was obviously a throw away comment simply talking about the logic of a given argument. It has nothing to do with 'why' something should or should not happen simply whether a stance is a logical one or not.
That the Catholics believe this bit about celibacy has been apparent for a few pages - there was never any need for you to regurgitate the point. But now that you apparently have, and have assigned some sort of logic to it, I'm asking what is that logic. What reasons that apply to a priest being celibate might apply to a gay person?
You seem to be trying to defend everything about your post but the only issue anyone could ever have with it.
You are constantly missing the point. Someone said it was horrible to expect someone to be celibate just because they were gay. I simply stated that if Catholics already expected priests to be celibate then why is it so hard for gay people to remain celibate?
I mean its not like they are saying only homosexuals must be celibate if they also require their own priests to be celibate. That was the only point I was making. It seemed pretty clear given the quoted text in my very first post.
If you are saying that it makes any kind of sense, I'll ask you again, "why?"
I guess you'll have to ask a Catholic why they would require celibacy of a homosexual. I was simply pointing out that celibacy in the Catholic church was an accepted practice and not looked at in quite the same way as non-Catholic people and not as horrible as the person I originally quoted was making out. After all if a priest can cope why can't a homosexual?
Anyway I'm not entirely sure why I let myself get dragged into this after what was obviously a throw away comment simply talking about the logic of a given argument. It has nothing to do with 'why' something should or should not happen simply whether a stance is a logical one or not.
SeattleMoose
Mar 11, 10:29 AM
I pray the loss of life is minimal. I was in the 6.8 Northridge Quake that hit LA back in the early 90's. That was a very destructive quake that caused whole buildings to tilt and knocked down part of the I-10 freeway.
But 8.9!!!! I can't even imagine...and then to have those Tsunami's on top of it.
:eek:
But 8.9!!!! I can't even imagine...and then to have those Tsunami's on top of it.
:eek:
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:51 PM
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Kissaragi
Apr 6, 09:14 AM
Theres alway the 14 day return period too if you dont like your mac.
ClimbingTheLog
Sep 12, 03:55 PM
There's no need for DVR functionality. Apple will replace your cable subscription.
Not at the current prices, they won't. I just did some quick math and for our household, (and we don't watch much TV by national standards), this content model is 50% more expensive than satellite for the shows we watch, and that doesn't include being able to turn on FoodTV or HGTV for some veg. time on occasion.
At 99 cents a show it starts having a price advantage. The trouble with TV is the bandwidth for value balance - a 3.5MB song I'll listen to a hundred times. A 250MB TV show I'll watch once, twice if it's incredible, only more if it's "Best of Both Worlds". Broadcast has a big advantage here.
Not at the current prices, they won't. I just did some quick math and for our household, (and we don't watch much TV by national standards), this content model is 50% more expensive than satellite for the shows we watch, and that doesn't include being able to turn on FoodTV or HGTV for some veg. time on occasion.
At 99 cents a show it starts having a price advantage. The trouble with TV is the bandwidth for value balance - a 3.5MB song I'll listen to a hundred times. A 250MB TV show I'll watch once, twice if it's incredible, only more if it's "Best of Both Worlds". Broadcast has a big advantage here.
balamw
Apr 9, 03:50 PM
If it's too hot on bare legs, then common sense says, "don't put it on bare legs!" It's so simple, even a cave man could figure it out.
We keep a spare 0.5" 3 ring binder in the family room for the rare time when using the MacBook is potentially uncomfortable.
99% of the time, e.g. couch surfing, it doesn't get hot at all. When it can, e.g. gaming, you have plenty of warning before it really starts getting warm (the fans start balring, etc...) to reach for a barrier.
Most, if not all, notebooks from all vendors suggest not using the notebook on anything other than a hard surface like a desk or table. Do not use in bed, on a sofa, couch, rug or bare legs. A lot of that has to do with blocking the vents they rely on for air cooling.
B
We keep a spare 0.5" 3 ring binder in the family room for the rare time when using the MacBook is potentially uncomfortable.
99% of the time, e.g. couch surfing, it doesn't get hot at all. When it can, e.g. gaming, you have plenty of warning before it really starts getting warm (the fans start balring, etc...) to reach for a barrier.
Most, if not all, notebooks from all vendors suggest not using the notebook on anything other than a hard surface like a desk or table. Do not use in bed, on a sofa, couch, rug or bare legs. A lot of that has to do with blocking the vents they rely on for air cooling.
B
pseudobrit
Sep 26, 12:21 AM
Where's the eight-core Memromn?
econgeek
Apr 12, 10:37 PM
They should have just called this iMovie pro, because that's what it is. So, Apple Color is left to die the death of Shake, huh? Wow, crazy.
I think you missed the color correction on ingest, non-destructive color correction, and one-click color correction feature announcements. Color is not dead, it is just no longer a separate app. The entire app is re-written with color matching integrate to the app, and color correction as well, it sounds like.
So this is basically a jazzed up Final Cut Express and the pros have been shown the door. Why am I not shocked about this. :mad:
This is what you wanted to believe and so this is all you see. Since people were saying essentially the same thing before anything had been announced, you're not going to be getting much sympathy.
I think you missed the color correction on ingest, non-destructive color correction, and one-click color correction feature announcements. Color is not dead, it is just no longer a separate app. The entire app is re-written with color matching integrate to the app, and color correction as well, it sounds like.
So this is basically a jazzed up Final Cut Express and the pros have been shown the door. Why am I not shocked about this. :mad:
This is what you wanted to believe and so this is all you see. Since people were saying essentially the same thing before anything had been announced, you're not going to be getting much sympathy.
Huntn
Apr 26, 07:07 PM
Atheist believe in the non-existence of God; some as fervently as Christians believe in one.
I'm not enough of an Atheist expert to agree with you on this, but there is definitely a difference between belief in the non-existence of God and not believing in God because there is not enough evidence. As I said previously believe in God is based on a threshold. Non belief is based on anything less the threshold of belief being reached. Maybe one of our friendly Atheists will confirm or deny. :)
I'm not enough of an Atheist expert to agree with you on this, but there is definitely a difference between belief in the non-existence of God and not believing in God because there is not enough evidence. As I said previously believe in God is based on a threshold. Non belief is based on anything less the threshold of belief being reached. Maybe one of our friendly Atheists will confirm or deny. :)
EagerDragon
Sep 12, 05:40 PM
I would be interested if it had PVR capabilities, a tuner, a hard disk, 2 firewire ports, and a CableCARD so I can get rid of the cable box. While it is nice as is it does not offer all it could.
Then again some of you would love it.
ZZZZZZZZZ
Then again some of you would love it.
ZZZZZZZZZ
EricNau
Sep 20, 12:40 AM
If it contains a HDD (a fact I am not entirely convinced of), I doubt it would be used for recording TV shows.
Programming such a device with a basic remote like the ones Steve Jobs previewed would be near-to-impossible.
If Apple did introduce the ability to record TV shows (which I also doubt), I believe it would be at the computer, only to be streamed to the iTV later.
Programming such a device with a basic remote like the ones Steve Jobs previewed would be near-to-impossible.
If Apple did introduce the ability to record TV shows (which I also doubt), I believe it would be at the computer, only to be streamed to the iTV later.
slate1
Sep 20, 01:37 PM
I'd much rather have TiVo than this crappy Scientific Atlanta DVR that Charter provides. But it costs less to rent than the TiVo service fee, and I'd still need to pay Charter to rent two CableCards if I replaced it with a TiVo.
I guess I'm lucky in that my Scientific Atlanta 8300HD-DVR works flawlessly and is well worth the $6.95/month my cable provider charges me. Having that DVR functionality included in the box that's got dual-cable-HD-tuners and its own show listing/management software just makes sense as a cable subscriber.
This is why the DVR functionality is meaningless to me with regards to the iTV. Plus, it's pretty meaningless funtionality in the US unless you're pulling SD or HD content over the air. Apple knows this and it will most likely mean that DVR functionality will never be a part of the iTV with regards to the US market.
I'll consider buying the iTV as it stands soon after it's released if it proves functional. If it had even a progressive-scan DVD player included it would be a no-brainer in my opinon and I'd be first in line the day it's released.
I guess I'm lucky in that my Scientific Atlanta 8300HD-DVR works flawlessly and is well worth the $6.95/month my cable provider charges me. Having that DVR functionality included in the box that's got dual-cable-HD-tuners and its own show listing/management software just makes sense as a cable subscriber.
This is why the DVR functionality is meaningless to me with regards to the iTV. Plus, it's pretty meaningless funtionality in the US unless you're pulling SD or HD content over the air. Apple knows this and it will most likely mean that DVR functionality will never be a part of the iTV with regards to the US market.
I'll consider buying the iTV as it stands soon after it's released if it proves functional. If it had even a progressive-scan DVD player included it would be a no-brainer in my opinon and I'd be first in line the day it's released.
topicolo
Jul 11, 10:27 PM
Sounds like these new Mac Pros are going to be expensive.
0 comments:
Post a Comment