Moyank24
Mar 25, 11:07 AM
As marriage is licensed by the state, it is in fact a privilege. The fact that it is near-universally granted doesn't make it any more a right.
I agree with you here. And that is the problem. It shouldn't be a privilege. Every consenting adult that wants to get married should be allowed to.
I agree with you here. And that is the problem. It shouldn't be a privilege. Every consenting adult that wants to get married should be allowed to.
Hellhammer
Mar 13, 02:54 PM
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
Yet they are still dependent on coal, oil and nuclear. Green energy isn't efficient enough. Also, if you didn't know, Denmark has one of the highest household electricity prices in the world.
NO nuclear.
Currently, that is same as saying no to electricity.
Yet they are still dependent on coal, oil and nuclear. Green energy isn't efficient enough. Also, if you didn't know, Denmark has one of the highest household electricity prices in the world.
NO nuclear.
Currently, that is same as saying no to electricity.
firestarter
Apr 23, 07:39 PM
I thought I answered this fairly well on the previous page.
*shrug*
OK, let's see.
A possible reason is that any time someone puts forth a theistic belief they get mocked, trolled, laughed at, ganged up against in threads, etc. The overall PRSI attitude of "religion is wrong, the only way to go forward or intelligent is to become free of religion" probably does not help any.
But this doesn't answer the question at all.
Why is the PRSI attitude 'religion is wrong'?
If these forums reflected US religious belief, atheist opinions would be vastly outnumbered by theists, wouldn't they? Why is this?
*shrug*
OK, let's see.
A possible reason is that any time someone puts forth a theistic belief they get mocked, trolled, laughed at, ganged up against in threads, etc. The overall PRSI attitude of "religion is wrong, the only way to go forward or intelligent is to become free of religion" probably does not help any.
But this doesn't answer the question at all.
Why is the PRSI attitude 'religion is wrong'?
If these forums reflected US religious belief, atheist opinions would be vastly outnumbered by theists, wouldn't they? Why is this?
OllyW
Apr 30, 03:03 AM
The iPod wasn't an instant success, sales only really only took off after the introduction of the Dock Connecter, but mostly the Click Wheel. This places it in with big sales really starting in 2005. That timeframe to 2009 (which was peak iPod sales, and included the Touch) is only 4 - 5 years, not a decade.
I think the real reason the iPod took off around that time was because it was properly opened up to the Windows market with the introduction of USB syncing and iTunes for Windows.
I think the real reason the iPod took off around that time was because it was properly opened up to the Windows market with the introduction of USB syncing and iTunes for Windows.
cmaier
Apr 20, 11:29 PM
*facepalm* Apple can go around skewing the numbers in their favor however they want (throwing in iPad's, iTouch, etc.), but the fact is both in the US and Worldwide, Android has the largest Smart Phone user base. So why would Google want to throw in the towel?
Apple didn't skew any numbers. Apple didn't provide these numbers. They had nothing to do with it.
That said, how are the numbers skewed? When counting OS market share do you treat 13" notebooks differently than desktops? Or do you add everything up?
Apple didn't skew any numbers. Apple didn't provide these numbers. They had nothing to do with it.
That said, how are the numbers skewed? When counting OS market share do you treat 13" notebooks differently than desktops? Or do you add everything up?
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.
samcraig
Mar 18, 12:20 PM
Exactly what I was thinking. Screw the next 4 hours, for the next month I'm going to non-stop stream audio and video. I even disabled WiFi so I don't use my works connection I use only AT&T's.
Blow me ATT.
Netflix non-stop for the next month
And this accomplishes what - exactly?
Blow me ATT.
Netflix non-stop for the next month
And this accomplishes what - exactly?
greenstork
Sep 12, 04:55 PM
It seems that will stream HDTV content, so I have my Elgato recording my favorite show in HDTV than it streams it to my flat panel and I can control it from my couch without having to go back to my computer on the other room.
I can access the itunes store, see my photos listen my music, etc.
What else you guys want?
If the iTV streams HD content, then it's going to be heavily compressed HD content. Depending on the quality of the compression, it may look great on your flat panel and it may look just okay, we'll see.
I can access the itunes store, see my photos listen my music, etc.
What else you guys want?
If the iTV streams HD content, then it's going to be heavily compressed HD content. Depending on the quality of the compression, it may look great on your flat panel and it may look just okay, we'll see.
mytdave
May 2, 11:29 AM
Why does Apple even have the "open safe files after download" option in Safari? If they insist on keeping that "feature" in Safari, the least they could do is have it off by default.
...And this new threat is not a virus. At best, it's a trojan. Still no viruses on MacOS X...
...And this new threat is not a virus. At best, it's a trojan. Still no viruses on MacOS X...
theheadguy
Aug 29, 02:35 PM
I swear, some people will excuse Apple of genocide if given the chance. How is it that Apple is doing "everything they can" when Dell is doing so much better? They both make the same things! Same with Motorola and Nokia. We even have some conspiracy theorists thinking Greenpeace is out to get Apple (although they seem to miss the part where Acer scores worse, and happens to be a smaller PC maker). Its simply impossible to try and excuse Apple when a company like Dell does better, not caring about companies destroying the environment is one thing but trying to pretend Apple is actually doing a good job is another.
You're spot on. Some people can't face the facts. It hurts their feelings to realize Apple can do some things very poorly.
You're spot on. Some people can't face the facts. It hurts their feelings to realize Apple can do some things very poorly.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 10:38 AM
Putting homosexuality down to the choice of a "hip counterculture" is hateful, because it completely trivializes the issue.
Real people's lives are being snuffed out because of who they are; these are kids that will never get a chance to do all of the things that make this life so great.
Your words are hateful because they further marginalize. I am a heterosexual man, and I did not choose to be one. My best friend is a homosexual man, and he did not choose to be one. Yet he had to endure an unending fear of violence for who he was, and I did not.
I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people; you're free to do that. But don't trivialize the situation; these people are dying for who they are, and that should shock and disturb every last one of us.
Oh man. Utterly ridiculous. I'm trivializing the issue? No, I'm putting it in a more accurate and less political context. And you call that hate!
Second, don't drag me into the ridiculous "born gay / chose to be gay" false dichotomy. I swear that gays invented that one just to trick dimwitted social conservatives into parroting it. It's a really poor rendering of Nature vs. Nurture, which is a spectrum and not a binary condition. And it doesn't matter. It's the behavior which is either morally wrong or isn't, so pick your side and argue it. Just don't argue that a behavior is moral because you were "born that way". That opens up a seriously dangerous can of worms.
You also end up implying that because fat people weren't "born that way", it's ok to mistreat them.
And then you finish it off with "I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people"... well that's great. I never said I don't like homosexual people. But I guess you didn't quite accuse me of that with that sentence either. I don't care if you hate your mom and puppies either. You don't hate your mom, do you? And if you do, why? Why don't you love your mom?
Real people's lives are being snuffed out because of who they are; these are kids that will never get a chance to do all of the things that make this life so great.
Your words are hateful because they further marginalize. I am a heterosexual man, and I did not choose to be one. My best friend is a homosexual man, and he did not choose to be one. Yet he had to endure an unending fear of violence for who he was, and I did not.
I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people; you're free to do that. But don't trivialize the situation; these people are dying for who they are, and that should shock and disturb every last one of us.
Oh man. Utterly ridiculous. I'm trivializing the issue? No, I'm putting it in a more accurate and less political context. And you call that hate!
Second, don't drag me into the ridiculous "born gay / chose to be gay" false dichotomy. I swear that gays invented that one just to trick dimwitted social conservatives into parroting it. It's a really poor rendering of Nature vs. Nurture, which is a spectrum and not a binary condition. And it doesn't matter. It's the behavior which is either morally wrong or isn't, so pick your side and argue it. Just don't argue that a behavior is moral because you were "born that way". That opens up a seriously dangerous can of worms.
You also end up implying that because fat people weren't "born that way", it's ok to mistreat them.
And then you finish it off with "I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people"... well that's great. I never said I don't like homosexual people. But I guess you didn't quite accuse me of that with that sentence either. I don't care if you hate your mom and puppies either. You don't hate your mom, do you? And if you do, why? Why don't you love your mom?
appleguy123
Apr 23, 04:06 PM
I believe in God or a higher power as some would call it.
However, I do understand atheists and people who ask, "Is there a God if this or that terrible event happens?" (war, gang violence, greedy corporations, etc.)
People know where I stand when I quote them John 3:16 from the Bible and once anybody reads the Bible in its context in the New Testament, they will realize that God is not a referee and we have our free will. Part of free will is having the human race run things and so far, things have been pretty bad.
The hope is, some say (including me), is that the human race may come to the conclusion that man is the most evil species (and destructive species) ever to live on this planet. We as a species don't deserve to be on top of the food chain.
Let's just say for a second there is no God. Then what a sad planet we live on if the future is up to us humans. my two cents
Where does the Bible say that we have free will? Did not God predefine all actions?
Also, why does everything in the universe operate as if there were no god(evolution, big bang, evil, starvation)? Is God lazy?
However, I do understand atheists and people who ask, "Is there a God if this or that terrible event happens?" (war, gang violence, greedy corporations, etc.)
People know where I stand when I quote them John 3:16 from the Bible and once anybody reads the Bible in its context in the New Testament, they will realize that God is not a referee and we have our free will. Part of free will is having the human race run things and so far, things have been pretty bad.
The hope is, some say (including me), is that the human race may come to the conclusion that man is the most evil species (and destructive species) ever to live on this planet. We as a species don't deserve to be on top of the food chain.
Let's just say for a second there is no God. Then what a sad planet we live on if the future is up to us humans. my two cents
Where does the Bible say that we have free will? Did not God predefine all actions?
Also, why does everything in the universe operate as if there were no god(evolution, big bang, evil, starvation)? Is God lazy?
SPUY767
Jul 12, 08:58 AM
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. ;)
Name another consumer workstation with a XEON Processor in it. For XEON based machines, the Apple's will be a deal, much like the XServes were the cheapest 1u you could get with the power.
Name another consumer workstation with a XEON Processor in it. For XEON based machines, the Apple's will be a deal, much like the XServes were the cheapest 1u you could get with the power.
citi
Apr 15, 01:03 PM
Dont bash his/her religious beliefs. They could be right or wrong...its up to each person to decide, and make true in their lives. Personally, I believe in a powerful God of love and grace. Just my 2cents:)
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong". Morality is subjective and so is the Bible/Religion.
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong". Morality is subjective and so is the Bible/Religion.
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
r1ch4rd
Apr 23, 05:09 PM
I know a few, they are surgeons and oncologists.
Just ask their patients. ;)
I'm glad my doctor isn't omniscient... she might not approve! :)
Just ask their patients. ;)
I'm glad my doctor isn't omniscient... she might not approve! :)
EricNau
May 8, 05:08 PM
I can honestly and without exaggeration say that over half of the calls placed with my iPhone drop, and it's been getting progressively worse in both cities where I use my phone. It's practically unusable.
My phone so consistently cycles between full bars and no service that Apple replaced my phone under warranty, to no avail.
I love my iPhone, but AT&T needs to go.
My phone so consistently cycles between full bars and no service that Apple replaced my phone under warranty, to no avail.
I love my iPhone, but AT&T needs to go.
AppliedVisual
Oct 20, 02:36 PM
So the high end will no longer be at 3ghz?
How hard can an extra 333mhz be to attain? Especially with these cool-running Intel chips.
It will come, just not with the initial production models. With the quad-core chips, Intel is already running into FSB bandwidth issues as it is. The Clovertowns are essentially dual Woodcrest CPUs stuck on the same die, sharing the same FSB and communication between the first duo-core CPU and the second duo-core CPU on that die must travel onto the FSB and into the other CPU. Between the two cores that are linked directly, data sharing can be handled through the L1 cache. So, depending on your application, the 8-core may be no better than a 4-core system -- if what your'e doing is already maxing out your CPU bus bandwidth. Somwhere down the road as Intel shifts to its 45nm production process and fully integrates all 4 cores on a single CPU (and later, 8 cores on die), we will see massive improvements in inter-core bandwidth. They will have to step-up on the FSB bandwidth though... Possibly by increasing the MHz, but more than likely we'll see some of that combined with increasing the width of the data path and possibly using multiple parallel FSB designs. ...Going to be interesting, that's for sure. And with Intel's new process and the plans for continuously jamming more cores onto a die at higher speeds, I think we're in for a real ride over the next 5 years or so.
How hard can an extra 333mhz be to attain? Especially with these cool-running Intel chips.
It will come, just not with the initial production models. With the quad-core chips, Intel is already running into FSB bandwidth issues as it is. The Clovertowns are essentially dual Woodcrest CPUs stuck on the same die, sharing the same FSB and communication between the first duo-core CPU and the second duo-core CPU on that die must travel onto the FSB and into the other CPU. Between the two cores that are linked directly, data sharing can be handled through the L1 cache. So, depending on your application, the 8-core may be no better than a 4-core system -- if what your'e doing is already maxing out your CPU bus bandwidth. Somwhere down the road as Intel shifts to its 45nm production process and fully integrates all 4 cores on a single CPU (and later, 8 cores on die), we will see massive improvements in inter-core bandwidth. They will have to step-up on the FSB bandwidth though... Possibly by increasing the MHz, but more than likely we'll see some of that combined with increasing the width of the data path and possibly using multiple parallel FSB designs. ...Going to be interesting, that's for sure. And with Intel's new process and the plans for continuously jamming more cores onto a die at higher speeds, I think we're in for a real ride over the next 5 years or so.
Sounds Good
Apr 6, 09:42 AM
What do you DO with your Windows box?
Web development, website management, domain name management, some graphics, some photography, lots of asking questions on forums. :)
What applications are important to you?
Firefox. Wordpress. MS Excel. MS Word. Notepad. Domain Name software (Windows only). Photoshop. Lightroom. CuteFTP. MS FrontPage (yep, really). TeamViewer. Slysoft AnyDVD and CloneDVD.
Web development, website management, domain name management, some graphics, some photography, lots of asking questions on forums. :)
What applications are important to you?
Firefox. Wordpress. MS Excel. MS Word. Notepad. Domain Name software (Windows only). Photoshop. Lightroom. CuteFTP. MS FrontPage (yep, really). TeamViewer. Slysoft AnyDVD and CloneDVD.
Vulpinemac
Apr 28, 09:47 AM
Almost all of that is due to the iPad. They had around 4% of the global market for computers last year.
Do some research. Globally Apple passed 7% last year.
Do some research. Globally Apple passed 7% last year.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 07:05 PM
and the ideal candidate for this product would be someone who has a huge archive of DVD movies to stream to several rooms.
That person would be an AV enthusiast. iTunes is not for an AV enthusiast.
When iTunes steps up to offer decent visual content it might have a role but right now it's useless. Why are they going to buy all the episodes of Lost to stream to their 60 inch SXRD in one room, LCD panel in the others and the projector in the main room when it's presented in a substandard quality and not even widescreen.
Alternatively they can just get a couple of HD boxes from the cable/sat provider and hook them directly with full HD widescreen broadcasts or just plug in an antenna.
Until then this is going to be perfect for watching poorly encoded podcasts on a HDTV or movies that aren't even widescreen and have no extras for the same price as a DVD! :rolleyes:
The Mini was already a perfect device for this role. Throw in a large hard drive, just AV outputs, ethernet and and wireless connectivity for a multimedia keyboard and it was a standalone media center ready to go in anyone's living room that you could rip your own DVDs to.
In this case you have to have a main unit somewhere else humming away all day and stick this thing in the middle.
You are way off on serveral of your points -- iTV is widescreen to HD Complient Devices.
An enthusiast does not want to store DVD's -- they want drive based solutions with drive based backup. This is how all high end stuff is done. I work with a client that supports this kind of setup.
http://www.axonix.com/
I think you are misguided on this point.
That person would be an AV enthusiast. iTunes is not for an AV enthusiast.
When iTunes steps up to offer decent visual content it might have a role but right now it's useless. Why are they going to buy all the episodes of Lost to stream to their 60 inch SXRD in one room, LCD panel in the others and the projector in the main room when it's presented in a substandard quality and not even widescreen.
Alternatively they can just get a couple of HD boxes from the cable/sat provider and hook them directly with full HD widescreen broadcasts or just plug in an antenna.
Until then this is going to be perfect for watching poorly encoded podcasts on a HDTV or movies that aren't even widescreen and have no extras for the same price as a DVD! :rolleyes:
The Mini was already a perfect device for this role. Throw in a large hard drive, just AV outputs, ethernet and and wireless connectivity for a multimedia keyboard and it was a standalone media center ready to go in anyone's living room that you could rip your own DVDs to.
In this case you have to have a main unit somewhere else humming away all day and stick this thing in the middle.
You are way off on serveral of your points -- iTV is widescreen to HD Complient Devices.
An enthusiast does not want to store DVD's -- they want drive based solutions with drive based backup. This is how all high end stuff is done. I work with a client that supports this kind of setup.
http://www.axonix.com/
I think you are misguided on this point.
Sodner
Apr 21, 07:37 AM
I live in a country of excess. Excuse me if I don't weep at night because Kanye West or Lil Wayne are missing out on my $1+ for their songs.
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
However, with the little bit of knowledge that I have, my Android phone works just as well FOR ME, and I paid nothing for it.
What, did you steal that too?
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
However, with the little bit of knowledge that I have, my Android phone works just as well FOR ME, and I paid nothing for it.
What, did you steal that too?
dobbin
Sep 20, 03:45 AM
I don't want to have to put yet another box on the shelf under my TV and have yet another remote control kicking around my living room.
I already have a DVD, a VCR, and a Sky+ box (DVR). I know that in theory I should choose just one or two of these, but that doesn't work in practice. What happens when my mum records something on a video for me - I still need a VCR, and until Sky bring out a Sky+ box with a *much* larger hard disk then I'll need a DVD for keeping things long term.
If Apple could include at least a DVD burner and ideally a DVR hard disk as well, then I could actually start replacing the other machines I have rather than just adding to them and cluttering up my living room.
Its probably a moot point anyway as I doubt iTV will be launched in the UK for a long while anyway.
I already have a DVD, a VCR, and a Sky+ box (DVR). I know that in theory I should choose just one or two of these, but that doesn't work in practice. What happens when my mum records something on a video for me - I still need a VCR, and until Sky bring out a Sky+ box with a *much* larger hard disk then I'll need a DVD for keeping things long term.
If Apple could include at least a DVD burner and ideally a DVR hard disk as well, then I could actually start replacing the other machines I have rather than just adding to them and cluttering up my living room.
Its probably a moot point anyway as I doubt iTV will be launched in the UK for a long while anyway.
iJaz
Aug 29, 03:37 PM
Bah, who cares, I used to dig Greenpeace but they are just rubbish nowadys.
No comments:
Post a Comment