Squire
Sep 20, 07:45 AM
To those that say that Apple won't allow this because it would hit their own TV show revenues from the iTunes store... I disagree. They'll have to give in sooner or later, because EyeTV isn't going to go away. Would iTunes/iPod have been such a success if they'd have made us purchase all our music from iTunes, even the stuff we alread had on CD?
I'm not going to pay �3 (or whatever) for an Episode of Lost if I could have recorded on EyeTV last night... especially when C4 repeat each episode about 6 times per week anyway.
I see your point but maybe you're not seeing the big picture-- the future as Apple, perhaps, sees it. (And you are paying for that "Lost" episode whether you watch it or not, aren't you?)
A few minutes ago, I was thinking, Gee...if Apple got enough content on iTunes, a guy could just buy all the stuff he wanted to see and to hell with the rest. I see this as replacing cable TV in the not-too-distant future. Customized, commercial-free TV delivered to your computer and then sent to your iTV box. Why pay for that afternoon soap opera that you never watch?
This model probably would not make financial sense for people who watch a lot of TV but, for those who only watch a select few shows, it might be a good alternative to cable TV.
-Squire
I'm not going to pay �3 (or whatever) for an Episode of Lost if I could have recorded on EyeTV last night... especially when C4 repeat each episode about 6 times per week anyway.
I see your point but maybe you're not seeing the big picture-- the future as Apple, perhaps, sees it. (And you are paying for that "Lost" episode whether you watch it or not, aren't you?)
A few minutes ago, I was thinking, Gee...if Apple got enough content on iTunes, a guy could just buy all the stuff he wanted to see and to hell with the rest. I see this as replacing cable TV in the not-too-distant future. Customized, commercial-free TV delivered to your computer and then sent to your iTV box. Why pay for that afternoon soap opera that you never watch?
This model probably would not make financial sense for people who watch a lot of TV but, for those who only watch a select few shows, it might be a good alternative to cable TV.
-Squire
Peterkro
Mar 13, 04:45 PM
For energy wind is not considered a back bone power supply due to it not reliable enough. Solar can be consider good backbone due to it is reliable and we can store the heat energy to power us threw the night.
Wind would be fine as a back bone source if the geographical spread was big enough (it's always windy in one area or another) and in spite of people saying energy storage is a problem in fact it's not.(see for instance the Ffestiniog Power Station in north Wales which has been operating since the early sixties)(it can come online in 90 seconds if necessary)
Wind would be fine as a back bone source if the geographical spread was big enough (it's always windy in one area or another) and in spite of people saying energy storage is a problem in fact it's not.(see for instance the Ffestiniog Power Station in north Wales which has been operating since the early sixties)(it can come online in 90 seconds if necessary)
more...
DaftRyan
Apr 9, 12:28 AM
I would love to have a conversation with the headhunters who managed to pull this one off. Talk about talent.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 05:12 PM
Islam is more ideology/politcal movement than a simple religion.
You're right, if more had been done to integrate immigrants rather than endorse multi-kulti then perhaps we'd see the new generation being less radical than their parents, however (in belgium at least) the children of immigrants, who were born in europe, are MORE radical and devout than their parents. madness...
The radicalisation is a response to what many Muslims feel: Islamophobia and a war against Islam.
Anything that goes against Western Values is evil to me... or at least anathema. I don't like the term evil, it's too christian... as is anathema for that matter.
Wow, you are so very tolerant of other people. Some modern values come back from the great Islamic empire, or the Ottoman empire.
You're right, if more had been done to integrate immigrants rather than endorse multi-kulti then perhaps we'd see the new generation being less radical than their parents, however (in belgium at least) the children of immigrants, who were born in europe, are MORE radical and devout than their parents. madness...
The radicalisation is a response to what many Muslims feel: Islamophobia and a war against Islam.
Anything that goes against Western Values is evil to me... or at least anathema. I don't like the term evil, it's too christian... as is anathema for that matter.
Wow, you are so very tolerant of other people. Some modern values come back from the great Islamic empire, or the Ottoman empire.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 14, 09:05 AM
My opinion: it's time to end the age of light-water cooled pressurized uranium-fueled reactors. There's so many drawbacks to this design it's not funny.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
more...
OneMike
May 2, 09:09 AM
significant, but you have to install
skunk
Mar 16, 02:09 PM
The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. Is completely irresponsible the opposite of short-sighted?
more...
PCUser
Oct 11, 12:44 PM
This isn't going to further the discussion any, but... javahedi, perhaps you could post a link to the C code? I'd very much like to compile it with GCC under Linux and Windows. Just a curious benchmark, IMO. :) Thanks!
(Doesn't the benchmark do 1,600,000,000 calculations? 20,000 x 20,000 x 4 = 1,600,000,000... am I missing something? It does two adds, one multiply, and one sqrt per cycle. The loop cycles 400,000,000 times... ?)
(Doesn't the benchmark do 1,600,000,000 calculations? 20,000 x 20,000 x 4 = 1,600,000,000... am I missing something? It does two adds, one multiply, and one sqrt per cycle. The loop cycles 400,000,000 times... ?)
ct2k7
Mar 11, 04:43 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698
Looking hairier by the minute. :eek:
**** :eek:
Looking hairier by the minute. :eek:
**** :eek:
more...
THX1139
Jul 13, 03:15 AM
We were talking about MacPro's when you basically asked "well, what about Adobe?". Well, what about it? Why does everything have to be about Adobe, when the fact is that macs are used for zillion other things besides running Photoshop?
After reading your post, I thought I'd join in. I hear what you are saying about Adobe, but truth is, the majority of Mac desktop professional users are people who rely on Adobe for everyday work. Sad but true and I wish Apple would release something to go up against Photoshop. Having worked the past 10 years in graphic design, I have never come across any studio or designer that didn't rely on at least one Adobe product. Adobe is pretty entrenched in the creative industry and to think otherwise is short-sighted. Now before you go thinking "so what", keep in mind that disregarding the creative industry means you are losing a big chunk of potential buyers. I think it would be enough loss to make Apple take notice. Why do you think Steve mentioned Adobe during his MWSF keynote? Sure there are a few pros who don't need Adobe or get by on other products, but that is few and far between. So in support of what the OP said, I agree that the Intel migration is going to be hindered by Adobe when it comes time for most studios to buy new machines. Thinking otherwise is not looking at the big picture.
After reading your post, I thought I'd join in. I hear what you are saying about Adobe, but truth is, the majority of Mac desktop professional users are people who rely on Adobe for everyday work. Sad but true and I wish Apple would release something to go up against Photoshop. Having worked the past 10 years in graphic design, I have never come across any studio or designer that didn't rely on at least one Adobe product. Adobe is pretty entrenched in the creative industry and to think otherwise is short-sighted. Now before you go thinking "so what", keep in mind that disregarding the creative industry means you are losing a big chunk of potential buyers. I think it would be enough loss to make Apple take notice. Why do you think Steve mentioned Adobe during his MWSF keynote? Sure there are a few pros who don't need Adobe or get by on other products, but that is few and far between. So in support of what the OP said, I agree that the Intel migration is going to be hindered by Adobe when it comes time for most studios to buy new machines. Thinking otherwise is not looking at the big picture.
more...
h'biki
Mar 20, 07:09 PM
It is wrong? How so? If I burn a track for my wedding video, yes, I'm technically breakeing the law, but there is nothing immoral about doing that. No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. He isn't stealing anything. He's breaking a copyright law that makes no sense in that case.
But what if I got hold of that wedding video and decided to, I dunno, turn it into a music video for my own music... and that music video got onto MTV? No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. I'm not stealing. I'm -merely- infringing copyright.
But what if I got hold of that wedding video and decided to, I dunno, turn it into a music video for my own music... and that music video got onto MTV? No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. I'm not stealing. I'm -merely- infringing copyright.
more...
brap
Mar 20, 09:54 PM
It's more than a copyright/fair use issue.
...
You AGREED not to bypass or attempt to circumvent DRM, not to redistribute the files in any unauthorized manner, and to use iTunes alone to interface with the iTMS. And not just agreed passively, but EXPLICITLY agreed to those terms, and now you are breaking your word. How is that not morally wrong?
...
<snip>
I do agree that it is effectively the break of a promise. Hell, it's the breaking of a contract... which is certainly quite wrong. But what if you believe the original terms and conditions to be morally wrong in themselves?
Yes, yes, I know. Don't use the software, but people do, and people will. In the scheme of things, considering all alternatives, I really can't see such strong objection. For reasons noted in my first post, the software will likely only be picked up by a small number of tech-savvy, yet honest users - and that's the thing. This is a very small market, quite unlikely to be distributing these songs over p2p - which is (correct me if I'm wrong) the main reason for DRM in the first place?
Trying to stay pragmatic here without advocating anarchy. It's not working.
...
You AGREED not to bypass or attempt to circumvent DRM, not to redistribute the files in any unauthorized manner, and to use iTunes alone to interface with the iTMS. And not just agreed passively, but EXPLICITLY agreed to those terms, and now you are breaking your word. How is that not morally wrong?
...
<snip>
I do agree that it is effectively the break of a promise. Hell, it's the breaking of a contract... which is certainly quite wrong. But what if you believe the original terms and conditions to be morally wrong in themselves?
Yes, yes, I know. Don't use the software, but people do, and people will. In the scheme of things, considering all alternatives, I really can't see such strong objection. For reasons noted in my first post, the software will likely only be picked up by a small number of tech-savvy, yet honest users - and that's the thing. This is a very small market, quite unlikely to be distributing these songs over p2p - which is (correct me if I'm wrong) the main reason for DRM in the first place?
Trying to stay pragmatic here without advocating anarchy. It's not working.
more...
p0intblank
Sep 20, 04:38 PM
I'm really hoping this is the iPod all over again. In other words, I hope all the naysayers here get proved wrong and the iTV becomes the new toy everyone has to have in their house.
Apple needs to market this, by the way. Guaranteed there are tons of households willing to purchase this just to play photo slideshows on their TVs. I hope Apple can get the message across. I want as many people possible to recognize what a great product this is going to be.
Apple needs to market this, by the way. Guaranteed there are tons of households willing to purchase this just to play photo slideshows on their TVs. I hope Apple can get the message across. I want as many people possible to recognize what a great product this is going to be.
dobbin
Sep 20, 06:09 AM
Er, that's what your Mac is for.
All these calls for adding tuners, hard drives and burners are missing the point. Those functions belong in the host computer. iTV is just a method of getting the content from your Mac/PC to your stereo or TV.
Yeah Ok, thats fine, but then I also need a machine to get content from my TV/tuner/satelite to my Mac.
As I understand it, iTV is only for wireless streaming in one direction. If I need a cable to get broadcast programmes into my Mac, then I may as well use that cable to get the content back onto my TV!
All these calls for adding tuners, hard drives and burners are missing the point. Those functions belong in the host computer. iTV is just a method of getting the content from your Mac/PC to your stereo or TV.
Yeah Ok, thats fine, but then I also need a machine to get content from my TV/tuner/satelite to my Mac.
As I understand it, iTV is only for wireless streaming in one direction. If I need a cable to get broadcast programmes into my Mac, then I may as well use that cable to get the content back onto my TV!
shawnce
Jul 12, 10:53 AM
The most intelligent post on this thread.
...but Intel has workstation chipsets that support the Xeon 51xx series and they have 16x PCIe (among several other nice things)...
For example...
Intel� 5000X Chipset (http://intel.com/products/chipsets/5000x/index.htm) (Product Brief PDF (http://intel.com/products/chipsets/5000x/product_brief.pdf))
Also review page 7 of this PDF (http://download.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/dc51kprodbrief.pdf).
...but Intel has workstation chipsets that support the Xeon 51xx series and they have 16x PCIe (among several other nice things)...
For example...
Intel� 5000X Chipset (http://intel.com/products/chipsets/5000x/index.htm) (Product Brief PDF (http://intel.com/products/chipsets/5000x/product_brief.pdf))
Also review page 7 of this PDF (http://download.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/dc51kprodbrief.pdf).
more...
Peace
Sep 20, 06:09 PM
Well said. This product will NOT sell (after the initial "craze") if there is no DVR functionality. People (general mass of people not macrumors folk) are not ready to pay for individual TV shows. People love DVRs because they can record, watch later and skip commercials.
In the future when Apple has such a stronghold on the cable industry that companies are forced to move to a pay-per-channel (a-la-carte) system, then sure, but not right now.
DVR is where it is at for the moment. Apple is going to miss the boat. Apple having an iTV does not make me want to buy TV shows. It simply makes me not want to buy an iTV.
And I guess this is why Disney sold 125,000 movies the first week and Apple has sold millions of TV shows right?*
In the future when Apple has such a stronghold on the cable industry that companies are forced to move to a pay-per-channel (a-la-carte) system, then sure, but not right now.
DVR is where it is at for the moment. Apple is going to miss the boat. Apple having an iTV does not make me want to buy TV shows. It simply makes me not want to buy an iTV.
And I guess this is why Disney sold 125,000 movies the first week and Apple has sold millions of TV shows right?*
stunna
Jul 12, 09:57 AM
Maybe Apple will give you a choice.
more...
Heilage
Mar 25, 03:02 PM
Dear The Vatican (att. Pope Benedict XVI aka. Darth Sidious Doppelganger)
**** you. If you keep on spreading hate throughout the world, I will ride your asses for it every single day.
Sincerely,
Heilage
(And that's all I have to say about that)
**** you. If you keep on spreading hate throughout the world, I will ride your asses for it every single day.
Sincerely,
Heilage
(And that's all I have to say about that)
more...
.jpg "Greyson Chance dévoile sa")
Chris Blount
Mar 18, 08:19 AM
I'm happy to see some of the responsible replies here. I also say bravo to AT&T. It seems like whenever a thread like this comes up, it brings out the MacRumors den of thieves who like to circumvent data plans and steal data that the rest of us our paying for.
I like the teathering plan and don't mind paying for it. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't have subscribed. Simple as that. Nobody is twisting my arm.
I will agree that AT&T is taking us to the cleaners. It sucks, but I either don't give them my money or suck it up. We all make choices. Mine is simply that I won't steal to get what I want.
I like the teathering plan and don't mind paying for it. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't have subscribed. Simple as that. Nobody is twisting my arm.
I will agree that AT&T is taking us to the cleaners. It sucks, but I either don't give them my money or suck it up. We all make choices. Mine is simply that I won't steal to get what I want.
more...
jefhatfield
Oct 9, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman
True that macs are overpriced but you do gain the operating system which kicks micrsoft xp sh*tless.
that alone is enough reason for me to buy mac ;)
it's not way more expensive for what you get, but i would like to see ibooks be $999 us and tibooks $1999 for starters
towers can come down a couple hundred and emac could stand to be $999 and imac at $1099
crt imac can go for $599 and os x can go for $99 dollars
but i still prefer the mac os and mac hardware over windows and pc boxes/laptops
True that macs are overpriced but you do gain the operating system which kicks micrsoft xp sh*tless.
that alone is enough reason for me to buy mac ;)
it's not way more expensive for what you get, but i would like to see ibooks be $999 us and tibooks $1999 for starters
towers can come down a couple hundred and emac could stand to be $999 and imac at $1099
crt imac can go for $599 and os x can go for $99 dollars
but i still prefer the mac os and mac hardware over windows and pc boxes/laptops
R.Perez
Mar 11, 06:06 AM
8ft wave passed Midway Island, 6ft wave expected for Oahu. I live plenty high above sea level, and bought groceries so I am ALL GOOD.
more...
Tulse
Mar 20, 08:54 PM
it might be morally okay to use songs in your wedding video, but it's not morally okay to break the law in order to put them there when you have legal means of either doing so (which is the case--buy the CD)As I understand it, the issue of using music in your wedding video has nothing to do with breaking DRM, but instead with violating copyright. Even you get the music off of a CD, it would still be illegal.
more...
blackstarliner
Sep 20, 12:00 PM
It will be perfect for me. I need a video airport express type machine to connect to a big old projector in a cupboard that I want to feed dvd to wirelessly from the mini.
The big question in my view is whether you can indeed browse the store directly through the box itself, or whether my mini has to do that. Personally, I don't mind the mini doing it, because that's what I primarily want this functionality for.
But I reckon they would shift many, many units if they sold it as a standalone unit. Movies from your couch at any time more or less instantly, iTunes interface, no computer necessary at all. As simple as plugging in your cable box. You pay for what you want to watch, full stop. Even people without any idea about computers love movies. They would sell x*n units to the older generations, like a grey-haired 'vPod'. If they opened up the movie store worldwide with this online vPod for your fat tv, it would be very big.
The people begging for pirating capabilities are way off base. As someone mentioned earlier, Apple's interests, and the market differentiation they seek, lie in having people pay a fair price for a pleasing entertainment experience. They sell more hardware, the artists are paid for their trouble. How would they 'sell' this device to media companies that own content if it wasn't as 100% above board as buying a cinema ticket? Recording tv and burning dvds isn't what this device should be about. It should be about killing off cinemas for good, denting Blockbuster and DVD sales and appealing to a MASS market, not just hardware freaks and technology fetishists.
edit: can't spell
The big question in my view is whether you can indeed browse the store directly through the box itself, or whether my mini has to do that. Personally, I don't mind the mini doing it, because that's what I primarily want this functionality for.
But I reckon they would shift many, many units if they sold it as a standalone unit. Movies from your couch at any time more or less instantly, iTunes interface, no computer necessary at all. As simple as plugging in your cable box. You pay for what you want to watch, full stop. Even people without any idea about computers love movies. They would sell x*n units to the older generations, like a grey-haired 'vPod'. If they opened up the movie store worldwide with this online vPod for your fat tv, it would be very big.
The people begging for pirating capabilities are way off base. As someone mentioned earlier, Apple's interests, and the market differentiation they seek, lie in having people pay a fair price for a pleasing entertainment experience. They sell more hardware, the artists are paid for their trouble. How would they 'sell' this device to media companies that own content if it wasn't as 100% above board as buying a cinema ticket? Recording tv and burning dvds isn't what this device should be about. It should be about killing off cinemas for good, denting Blockbuster and DVD sales and appealing to a MASS market, not just hardware freaks and technology fetishists.
edit: can't spell
mtkoren
Apr 9, 07:36 AM
Poaching suggests illegal, secret, stealing or other misadventure that is underhanded and sneaky.
From what I've read so far, and I'd be glad for someone to show me what I've missed, Apple had the job positions already advertised and for all we know these individuals, realizing their companies were sliding, applied to - and were received by - apple which replied with open arms. Does anyone have evidence to the contrary? Would that be poaching? Is this forum, like some others, doing headline greed?
Michael
From what I've read so far, and I'd be glad for someone to show me what I've missed, Apple had the job positions already advertised and for all we know these individuals, realizing their companies were sliding, applied to - and were received by - apple which replied with open arms. Does anyone have evidence to the contrary? Would that be poaching? Is this forum, like some others, doing headline greed?
Michael
No comments:
Post a Comment