manic
Jul 12, 09:23 AM
I disagree with the line of thought that Macbooks will remain with yonah processors. heres why:
intel has announced merom will ship at the same price point as yonah. they are pin compatible. Apple can, therefore, simply fit the chips without increasing the macbooks price point/ incurring in high engeneering costs.
One might say: oh, but theyll do it to differentiate the mb from the mbp.
Seems to me that if they were concerned with pushing a high performance gap they wouldnt have specced the mb so similarly to the mbp in the first place.
seccondly, it makes no business sense. Apple knows people are holding out for merom. this will increase after its been released. if they choose to keep yonah just to justify the price gap between the mb and the mbp, theyll be alienating buyers y crippling its product without sound reason. Mac users are tech savvy. theyd be put off by being forced to by a yonah notebook with merom widely available. It will happen and its Intels merit.
lastly, lets not forget the "dell factor". If apples consumer laptops are ony available with yonah, and dells consumer laptops are fitted with merom at the same price point, I think we would see a lot of would be switchers not switching.
Conclusion: all apple would benefit from keeping yonahs in the macbooks would be to make mbp users feel happier about their machines. on the other hand, it would lose sales of macbook from customers (i) not switching or (ii) further delaying their purchase. Doesnt make business sense to me
intel has announced merom will ship at the same price point as yonah. they are pin compatible. Apple can, therefore, simply fit the chips without increasing the macbooks price point/ incurring in high engeneering costs.
One might say: oh, but theyll do it to differentiate the mb from the mbp.
Seems to me that if they were concerned with pushing a high performance gap they wouldnt have specced the mb so similarly to the mbp in the first place.
seccondly, it makes no business sense. Apple knows people are holding out for merom. this will increase after its been released. if they choose to keep yonah just to justify the price gap between the mb and the mbp, theyll be alienating buyers y crippling its product without sound reason. Mac users are tech savvy. theyd be put off by being forced to by a yonah notebook with merom widely available. It will happen and its Intels merit.
lastly, lets not forget the "dell factor". If apples consumer laptops are ony available with yonah, and dells consumer laptops are fitted with merom at the same price point, I think we would see a lot of would be switchers not switching.
Conclusion: all apple would benefit from keeping yonahs in the macbooks would be to make mbp users feel happier about their machines. on the other hand, it would lose sales of macbook from customers (i) not switching or (ii) further delaying their purchase. Doesnt make business sense to me
r.j.s
May 2, 09:16 AM
so much for the no malware on macs myth :D
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
There has been malware for years, and IIRC, it all requires the user to do something to install it.
Basic user awareness will prevent this from becoming an issue.
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
There has been malware for years, and IIRC, it all requires the user to do something to install it.
Basic user awareness will prevent this from becoming an issue.
bigchief
May 5, 12:01 PM
I've been with AT&T for many years and I can not remember the last time I had a dropped call. If I started having dropped calls I would change carriers.
ender land
Apr 23, 10:11 PM
I'm not sure I understand the point in the first part of your post so I'll have to skip that for now. Maybe you can phrase it a different way to help me out. Anyway, the whole "moral" issue has been raised and argued before. In my mind, there are many reasons why, logically, atheists are, by far, more moral then religious people. I'll just throw one out at you: your statement of someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of morals to abide by isn't something I can agree with for many reasons. One, why does one have to have a religious book to have a standard of morals. Atheists can know right and wrong and make laws based on common sense morals. We don't need some made up god to tell us what is right and wrong. Secondly, have you read some of the "morals" in the holy books. If so, and you still follow these rules, you have very low standards for what good morals should be. One needs to look no further then the section on how to treat your slaves in the bible to see this fact!
Ugh, so much ignorance (hopefully unintentional), I don't know where to start...
If you are theistic, clearly it would make sense to base morality off what your God believes. Not doing so would be the equivalent of an atheist not agreeing with the scientific method.
Everything you say is hinged upon the belief religions are all wrong. If this is in fact true, I suppose you having this belief is true. Though you could also debate this back and forth, IF religion is all wrong, any religious morals are therefore created by those who practiced/invented the religion, which means there are far more viewpoints having gone into the creation of such morals.
Thirdly, it doesn't even matter whether the above is true with respect to what you said, even if religion is 100% made up, people who are religious (I'll pick on GWB again since he was by far more practicing Christian than Obama) are still basing their beliefs on something which is written down. This makes them more trustworthy, or perhaps a better word would be predictable. It is unlikely that someone like GWB will suddenly ever go "you know what, I think you're right, it's totally ok to allow abortion" because his beliefs are based on something which will not change. On the other hand, a politician who is completely atheistic has no such 'check' or 'reference' which means you have no idea that their position will not change.
"Common sense morals?" lol! There are so many examples of morals not being "common sense" both inside and outside theistic cultures. These "common sense" morals are only common sense because you personally believe in them, at the current time, given your set of circumstances. It is entirely possible they drastically change over time. A great example is the one you pointed out, slavery. Plenty of people thought it was "common sense" to allow slavery. What changed? Did people suddenly get "more common sense?" It seems likely to me that something like abortion is likely to eventually become a "common sense to outlaw" thing, while gay marriage will become a "wtf does the government care" common sense thing; neither of these is the current state in the United States.
Not to mention, common sense morals more or less is exactly what I am referring to when saying societal morals. The "this is morality as we see it, duh!" type of morality.
Regarding your final point, I am almost positive I have read more of the Bible and understand what it is saying better than you. I am not going to debate a book you seemingly do not know with you, so I will offer this: there is a difference between Old Testament law and the New Testament in terms of how we, ie not Jews living more than 2300 years ago, should interpret them in our daily lives. Not to mention, much of the Old Testament was written to a specific group of people at a specific time (that was a long time ago), which even if New Testament did not "free" us from Old Testament law, that slavery was much different at the time in practice and implementation (see Leviticus 25). Plus if you do want to see how to treat slaves from a Biblical standpoint, in light of Christ, read the book of Philemon in the New Testament, which specifically is written to a slaveowner from Paul.
Ugh, so much ignorance (hopefully unintentional), I don't know where to start...
If you are theistic, clearly it would make sense to base morality off what your God believes. Not doing so would be the equivalent of an atheist not agreeing with the scientific method.
Everything you say is hinged upon the belief religions are all wrong. If this is in fact true, I suppose you having this belief is true. Though you could also debate this back and forth, IF religion is all wrong, any religious morals are therefore created by those who practiced/invented the religion, which means there are far more viewpoints having gone into the creation of such morals.
Thirdly, it doesn't even matter whether the above is true with respect to what you said, even if religion is 100% made up, people who are religious (I'll pick on GWB again since he was by far more practicing Christian than Obama) are still basing their beliefs on something which is written down. This makes them more trustworthy, or perhaps a better word would be predictable. It is unlikely that someone like GWB will suddenly ever go "you know what, I think you're right, it's totally ok to allow abortion" because his beliefs are based on something which will not change. On the other hand, a politician who is completely atheistic has no such 'check' or 'reference' which means you have no idea that their position will not change.
"Common sense morals?" lol! There are so many examples of morals not being "common sense" both inside and outside theistic cultures. These "common sense" morals are only common sense because you personally believe in them, at the current time, given your set of circumstances. It is entirely possible they drastically change over time. A great example is the one you pointed out, slavery. Plenty of people thought it was "common sense" to allow slavery. What changed? Did people suddenly get "more common sense?" It seems likely to me that something like abortion is likely to eventually become a "common sense to outlaw" thing, while gay marriage will become a "wtf does the government care" common sense thing; neither of these is the current state in the United States.
Not to mention, common sense morals more or less is exactly what I am referring to when saying societal morals. The "this is morality as we see it, duh!" type of morality.
Regarding your final point, I am almost positive I have read more of the Bible and understand what it is saying better than you. I am not going to debate a book you seemingly do not know with you, so I will offer this: there is a difference between Old Testament law and the New Testament in terms of how we, ie not Jews living more than 2300 years ago, should interpret them in our daily lives. Not to mention, much of the Old Testament was written to a specific group of people at a specific time (that was a long time ago), which even if New Testament did not "free" us from Old Testament law, that slavery was much different at the time in practice and implementation (see Leviticus 25). Plus if you do want to see how to treat slaves from a Biblical standpoint, in light of Christ, read the book of Philemon in the New Testament, which specifically is written to a slaveowner from Paul.
d.perel
Mar 18, 04:01 PM
Echoing a comment I saw elsewhere, why doesn't someone just hire this guy. It probably costs more for Apple to sue each person than it would be to hire them and keep them busy fixing these problems internally.
This is one of those nuts who thinks he is for the common good, and has already won lawsuits against movie companies challenging his dvd-decryption software (software doesn't decrpyt and distribute movies illegally, people do) :mad: I bet he is VERY careful not to cross the line, and he probably has a great lawyer ;)
This is one of those nuts who thinks he is for the common good, and has already won lawsuits against movie companies challenging his dvd-decryption software (software doesn't decrpyt and distribute movies illegally, people do) :mad: I bet he is VERY careful not to cross the line, and he probably has a great lawyer ;)
MacRumors
May 5, 10:15 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2010/05/05/atandt-customers-continuing-to-experience-excessive-dropped-calls/)
A new survey (http://www.investorplace.com/experts/jeff_reeves/att-dropped-calls-t-stock-verizon-vz-sprint-nextel-s-t-mobile-deutsche-telecom-dt.html) from ChangeWave Research reveals that the firm's business-focused survey base is seeing the highest percentage of dropped calls (4.5%) on AT&T, easily exceeding performance leader Verizon (1.5%), as well as Sprint (2.4%) and T-Mobile (2.8%).
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/05/05/111315-dropped_calls.gif
Osama Bin Laden was killed
killed Osama Bin Laden
Osama in laden killed
Bin Laden” was killed by
A new survey (http://www.investorplace.com/experts/jeff_reeves/att-dropped-calls-t-stock-verizon-vz-sprint-nextel-s-t-mobile-deutsche-telecom-dt.html) from ChangeWave Research reveals that the firm's business-focused survey base is seeing the highest percentage of dropped calls (4.5%) on AT&T, easily exceeding performance leader Verizon (1.5%), as well as Sprint (2.4%) and T-Mobile (2.8%).
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/05/05/111315-dropped_calls.gif
ghost187
Apr 20, 07:06 PM
Darn, I am sooooo mad right now. NO LTE iPhone this year! I have to put up with HTC Thunderbolt for a year till iPhone 6. So what tha hell will iPhone 5 have besides dual core? Here is what I think we will get.
1.) A5 dual core (they won't mention speed cuz it will be underclocked)
2.) 8MP (if it fits in Galaxy S II it will fit in iPhone 5) + 1080p Video Recording
3.) HD Facetime (720p, same camera as iPod Touch rear camera) I am really betting this will happen because they put 720p cameras on MBP and promoted as HD Face Time.
4.) NFC Chip (if there is one company that can introduce a new standard, it's Apple)
That's it. You won't see 1gb ram, because you don't need it. Not on iOS, multitasking is very memory efficient. No LTE, as confirmed by this article. Screen size will remain the same, and it will come out June. Why isn't there a leak? Well because iPhone 5 will look identical to iPhone 4. I bet even workers who are assembling it can't tell the difference.
1.) A5 dual core (they won't mention speed cuz it will be underclocked)
2.) 8MP (if it fits in Galaxy S II it will fit in iPhone 5) + 1080p Video Recording
3.) HD Facetime (720p, same camera as iPod Touch rear camera) I am really betting this will happen because they put 720p cameras on MBP and promoted as HD Face Time.
4.) NFC Chip (if there is one company that can introduce a new standard, it's Apple)
That's it. You won't see 1gb ram, because you don't need it. Not on iOS, multitasking is very memory efficient. No LTE, as confirmed by this article. Screen size will remain the same, and it will come out June. Why isn't there a leak? Well because iPhone 5 will look identical to iPhone 4. I bet even workers who are assembling it can't tell the difference.
CaoCao
Mar 26, 09:07 PM
there's no reason why the church can't continue for their believers if it learns to respect the rights of those who don't believe in its teachings
The Church wont bend on certain issues. This is one of those issues.
The Church wont bend on certain issues. This is one of those issues.
jefhatfield
Oct 8, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
These test that this guy puts up are crap! The Athlon is overclocked to be a 2100+, none of the systems have the most current OS. I personally have seen great variations in his tests over the years, and personally, I don't buy it. Why test for single processor functions? The Dual is a DUAL! All of the major Apps are dual aware, as is the OS!
Try that with XP Home.
i don't think there is an easy way to test a mac vs a pc for speed issues
but overall, i like barefeats and i think those tests give one a general idea of what a machine can do and are not specifically one hundred percent accurate all the time in the tests
sometimes magazine comparisons between two pc machines are not equally matched in terms of ram, video card, etc...
one thing is certain, the athlon is faster than the duron, the pentium 4 is faster than the celeron, and the G4 is faster (in photoshop) than the G3...but beyond that, it is hard to get a perfect reading
my overclocked 2 cents;)
These test that this guy puts up are crap! The Athlon is overclocked to be a 2100+, none of the systems have the most current OS. I personally have seen great variations in his tests over the years, and personally, I don't buy it. Why test for single processor functions? The Dual is a DUAL! All of the major Apps are dual aware, as is the OS!
Try that with XP Home.
i don't think there is an easy way to test a mac vs a pc for speed issues
but overall, i like barefeats and i think those tests give one a general idea of what a machine can do and are not specifically one hundred percent accurate all the time in the tests
sometimes magazine comparisons between two pc machines are not equally matched in terms of ram, video card, etc...
one thing is certain, the athlon is faster than the duron, the pentium 4 is faster than the celeron, and the G4 is faster (in photoshop) than the G3...but beyond that, it is hard to get a perfect reading
my overclocked 2 cents;)
AidenShaw
Sep 21, 11:15 AM
...you have a Tivo - you have made the decision to keep your recorded TV media in its traditional place - the living room / den.
The iTV concept starts from the premis that this is an outdated concept.
You have some interesting points, but for some people there are other considerations....
Osama Bin Laden Killed.
killed Osama Bin Laden quot.
killed Osama in Laden and.
Bin Laden was killed in a
Osama Bin Laden dead, killed
osama in laden killed bin
Osama-in-laden-killed
Osama in Ladenwas killed.
Osama in Laden Killed in
The iTV concept starts from the premis that this is an outdated concept.
You have some interesting points, but for some people there are other considerations....
matticus008
Mar 20, 08:41 PM
@eric_n_dfw
Perhaps you should read what you quote:
legal/illegal and right/wrong do not have to line up with each other in the real world.
I know this isn't directed at me, but you're right. Right/wrong and legal/illegal aren't matching binaries. However, all things that are illegal are wrong. Whether they are simultaneously right (that is, morally justified) depends on the issue. Some things that are legal can be wrong while being right as well. In extreme cases, the morally right thing can be in direct conflict with the law, warranting illegal action. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, something that is "right" while simultaneously against the law is an issue that needs to be dealt with through legitimate change within the system.
That's why democracies exist--to give the people the ability to change the law and prevent the law from infringing on individual or group rights. The law, in this case, is not one of the extreme situations and there is not legitimate harm/reason to break the law except that it's easier and more convenient. There is no moral offense being committed by the law, and undermining the rule of law is not a justifiable offense over something as trivial as music use rights. In other words, 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) or to change the law to allow it (unnecessary here).
Perhaps you should read what you quote:
legal/illegal and right/wrong do not have to line up with each other in the real world.
I know this isn't directed at me, but you're right. Right/wrong and legal/illegal aren't matching binaries. However, all things that are illegal are wrong. Whether they are simultaneously right (that is, morally justified) depends on the issue. Some things that are legal can be wrong while being right as well. In extreme cases, the morally right thing can be in direct conflict with the law, warranting illegal action. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, something that is "right" while simultaneously against the law is an issue that needs to be dealt with through legitimate change within the system.
That's why democracies exist--to give the people the ability to change the law and prevent the law from infringing on individual or group rights. The law, in this case, is not one of the extreme situations and there is not legitimate harm/reason to break the law except that it's easier and more convenient. There is no moral offense being committed by the law, and undermining the rule of law is not a justifiable offense over something as trivial as music use rights. In other words, 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) or to change the law to allow it (unnecessary here).
rasmasyean
Mar 15, 08:58 AM
are you trying to be funny?
because:
a) you are not
b) it seems quite inappropriate
and if you are not. wow.
I'm joking about Afghanistan. It's supposed to be an Isreal joke, but obviously you didn't get it. And I think it's funny! ;)
Regarding the relocation, I think that would be pretty cool. Why not? If it boiled down to it, I think what I said would be pretty practical and beneficial.
because:
a) you are not
b) it seems quite inappropriate
and if you are not. wow.
I'm joking about Afghanistan. It's supposed to be an Isreal joke, but obviously you didn't get it. And I think it's funny! ;)
Regarding the relocation, I think that would be pretty cool. Why not? If it boiled down to it, I think what I said would be pretty practical and beneficial.
PhantomPumpkin
Apr 21, 09:07 AM
You apparently didn't read the article you quoted.
That version of Skype (since fixed) did not itself send any private data, which by the way, it has your permission to access.
It had a bug in the file permissions it used for caching contact etc info, which meant that it was possible for someone to write an app to look at it, since Skype didn't encrypt their cache files. There's no evidence anyone did so, though.
Kind of like how iOS apparently has a bug where our location history is available to anyone who writes an app to look at it.
Skype did a good job of quickly fixing the bug, but that is hardly the case in EVERY app out there. It was one example a potential flaw, of which there have been many on Android devices.
That version of Skype (since fixed) did not itself send any private data, which by the way, it has your permission to access.
It had a bug in the file permissions it used for caching contact etc info, which meant that it was possible for someone to write an app to look at it, since Skype didn't encrypt their cache files. There's no evidence anyone did so, though.
Kind of like how iOS apparently has a bug where our location history is available to anyone who writes an app to look at it.
Skype did a good job of quickly fixing the bug, but that is hardly the case in EVERY app out there. It was one example a potential flaw, of which there have been many on Android devices.
GGJstudios
Apr 9, 12:52 PM
If we're talking laptops, then depending on the model you buy, some may also have heating issues that other brands will not. If we're talking PC desktops, hopefully you've built your own, but if you didn't you can install more fans, a better heatsink, better thermal paste, etc. without voiding your warranty. Last time I checked, if you open your Mac, it voids your warranty.
The fact that a Mac notebook normally runs high temps is not a flaw, or "issue" or problem. They are designed to run at such temps. The fact that those who are new to Mac are unfamiliar with this doesn't make it a flaw. They just need to adjust their thinking. And no, simply opening a Mac doesn't void the warranty. For example, replacing/updating RAM and hard drives doesn't void the warranty.
The fact that a Mac notebook normally runs high temps is not a flaw, or "issue" or problem. They are designed to run at such temps. The fact that those who are new to Mac are unfamiliar with this doesn't make it a flaw. They just need to adjust their thinking. And no, simply opening a Mac doesn't void the warranty. For example, replacing/updating RAM and hard drives doesn't void the warranty.
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:59 AM
No but hold on a second. I don't know what scientific evidence has to say about something like morality. It may certainly be that sexuality is immutable. But if you're referring to my quote from the Catechism (and I lost track)... that doesn't say homosexuals are required to change their sexuality.
Nope; it says that they are required to deny their sexuality; to deny who they really are.
And if the argument goes that they have to deny their sexuality because they aren't married (just as non-married heterosexual people do), well isn't that grand: you've also denied them the right to marry. Why do you do that, pray tell? Because the invisible creator the universe told you that only men and women may marry.
That's a nice little roundabout way of making you feel better for your discrimination, isn't it?
Nope; it says that they are required to deny their sexuality; to deny who they really are.
And if the argument goes that they have to deny their sexuality because they aren't married (just as non-married heterosexual people do), well isn't that grand: you've also denied them the right to marry. Why do you do that, pray tell? Because the invisible creator the universe told you that only men and women may marry.
That's a nice little roundabout way of making you feel better for your discrimination, isn't it?
archipellago
May 2, 04:37 PM
I think the reality is in front of us. There's no need to google it.
sorry what was that....?
I coudn't hear you through all that sand, could you lift it up higher, say just above ground level..?
thanks..
sorry what was that....?
I coudn't hear you through all that sand, could you lift it up higher, say just above ground level..?
thanks..
citizenzen
Apr 23, 10:45 PM
If even 0.0000001% of an incredibly lowball estimate as to the number of current Christians in the world (not to mention past Christians or other theistic religions) have legitimately experienced a supernatural event - pick one, doesn't matter which or how large or small it is - this is an incorrect statement.
In another forum that I left recently (because of the poor quality of discussion) someone used this same type of argument to "prove" the existence of aliens visiting the Earth.
Of course it is a logical fallacy, this is why there is an element of faith required to fully claim an atheistic belief.
I'm sorry, but that sentence makes no sense at all.
I should mention this is not necessarily totally different than a Biblical definition of faith ...
I prefer dictionaries for my definitions.
In another forum that I left recently (because of the poor quality of discussion) someone used this same type of argument to "prove" the existence of aliens visiting the Earth.
Of course it is a logical fallacy, this is why there is an element of faith required to fully claim an atheistic belief.
I'm sorry, but that sentence makes no sense at all.
I should mention this is not necessarily totally different than a Biblical definition of faith ...
I prefer dictionaries for my definitions.
legacyb4
Sep 12, 06:43 PM
So based on what was shown today, the iTV itself is not presenting itself as a recording solution, only playback.
If that is the case, then it still misses the mark because you cannot do the one thing that a PVR can do easily which is to pick up the remote and click record without getting out of your chair (assuming your Mac is in a different room than the TV).
You have got this all wrong.
The iTV is a winner for these reasons:
3) Tuners: Numerous Third Solutions (elgato for example) exist right now to capture High Def video to the Mac and PC -- the stream is pauseable.
DJO
If that is the case, then it still misses the mark because you cannot do the one thing that a PVR can do easily which is to pick up the remote and click record without getting out of your chair (assuming your Mac is in a different room than the TV).
You have got this all wrong.
The iTV is a winner for these reasons:
3) Tuners: Numerous Third Solutions (elgato for example) exist right now to capture High Def video to the Mac and PC -- the stream is pauseable.
DJO
koobcamuk
Apr 8, 11:24 PM
Great news. Bring on more Infinity Blade-esque games! :D
Yeah, a million FPS clones on a 3.5" touchscreen sounds just greeaaat :rolleyes:
Yeah, a million FPS clones on a 3.5" touchscreen sounds just greeaaat :rolleyes:
Doctor Q
Mar 18, 04:10 PM
Apple's "fix" for this is fairly simple. Send the files in an ecrypted form. In order to maximize caching, use a common key that all iTunes clients have built-in, sort of like DVDs and CES. The client can then decrypt with the common key and re-encrypt with the DRM key.Don't iTMS and iTunes already do this?
gugy
Sep 12, 06:57 PM
Have fun sitting down to your computer to record shows. I get the vision, I reallly do, and I wanted Apple to pull it off better than anyone. But having to record HD content from one piece of hardware, convert it on my computer, load it onto iTunes and stream it to another piece of hardware (iTV) isn't exactly user friendly. The fact of the matter is, Apple doesn't really want you recording TV. So, while not impossible, you do have to jump through a few hoops. Having used TiVo for years, I would never convert to such a complicated system. If Apple had a DVR, they'd also have my business.
You don't understand. I am not planning to spend my entire day recording programming. Eventually there is a certain show or event that yes, I want to keep it and save for future viewing. This is where the elgato will come in.
I have my dishnetwork dvr and I love it and I am not planning to get rid of it anytime soon.
I think ITV is a great idea that has a lot of room to grow.
Yes, I rather buy content from Apple and have it stream directly to my ITV without having to go through the hassle of using elgato. But at this moment I think is very expensive to get a 640x480 movie. I rather wait for eventually a HDTV content on itunes. It might take 3 to 4 years for that to happen. Meanwhile I am enjoying my elgato and ITV for things that I want to keep and using my dishnetwork dvr for things i don't want to keep.
You don't understand. I am not planning to spend my entire day recording programming. Eventually there is a certain show or event that yes, I want to keep it and save for future viewing. This is where the elgato will come in.
I have my dishnetwork dvr and I love it and I am not planning to get rid of it anytime soon.
I think ITV is a great idea that has a lot of room to grow.
Yes, I rather buy content from Apple and have it stream directly to my ITV without having to go through the hassle of using elgato. But at this moment I think is very expensive to get a 640x480 movie. I rather wait for eventually a HDTV content on itunes. It might take 3 to 4 years for that to happen. Meanwhile I am enjoying my elgato and ITV for things that I want to keep and using my dishnetwork dvr for things i don't want to keep.
marksman
Apr 20, 08:19 PM
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.
You are a horribly immoral person.
I don't steal big macs from your place of work. Get a grip on your attitude.
Stay with your inferior Android devices. Nobody cares about the only thing you can cite that is better is that you are better capable of breaking the law and stealing from other people.
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.
You are a horribly immoral person.
I don't steal big macs from your place of work. Get a grip on your attitude.
Stay with your inferior Android devices. Nobody cares about the only thing you can cite that is better is that you are better capable of breaking the law and stealing from other people.
d-fi
Sep 12, 06:33 PM
I think a lot of people are overlooking what "iTV" does.
It's not a standalone component device that connects to your computer. It's an extension OF your computer.
Ughh, I really hope that Apple upates this product before releasing it for sale.
Come one Apple, what about the:
- TV recording
well you got me there it would be nice if it was a tivo as well but thats not really in apples interest
- DVD player
My mac has a DVD player so that means my tv would as well (and 99% of people already have a component DVD player for their tv) not something i want to pay for if i already have one
- Built In Storage (Hard Drive)
My mac has lots of Hard Drive space and i can add more if i need it. With iTV i can send anything to the TV that quicktime can play (i assume). Again since my computer already has lots of storage i don't want to pay for more and if i did need more space i would rather add space to my computer then to a set top box.
- Input for digital cable
well again it would be nice if it was a set top box as well but thats not really in apples interest so probably not going to happen.
Some analogies:
- It's like an wireless XBOX 360, except it doesn't play games or DVD's.
- It's like a networked DVD player, without the DVD player.
well I'm guessing that the iTV would have a remote (otherwise it will suck) so for DVD's if the DVD is in your mac press play on remote and it goes, that easy. maybe a slight annoyance if your computer is in another room but not hard. But i must point out again that 99% of people have a DVD player, the goal of iTV is to move away from conventional media.
This is slightly off topic but i would much rather pay for a (blue ray/HD-DVD) burner for my computer then a component unit for my tv as i would get much more use out of my (blue ray/HD-DVD) burner with "iTV" then i would ever get out of a component unit plus save me a few $$ by not having to buy both types of units
I'd rather spend $300 on almost ANY OTHER electronics product.
What a disappointment... I guess Apple is just trying to stave off the competition from the media capabilities of Windows Media Center and XBOX.
i guess were on different pages here but i think this unit is an excellent extension of my computer. i will admit i don't really care about recording aspect of the unit because i just download programs if i miss them. Thats the main reason why i would love to stream them to my tv with out moving my computer so i can enjoy all my programs in my living room.
I'm very interested in this unit and i KNOW I'm not alone
(BTW timswim78 just using your post to hi-light my point of view nothing personal :) )
It's not a standalone component device that connects to your computer. It's an extension OF your computer.
Ughh, I really hope that Apple upates this product before releasing it for sale.
Come one Apple, what about the:
- TV recording
well you got me there it would be nice if it was a tivo as well but thats not really in apples interest
- DVD player
My mac has a DVD player so that means my tv would as well (and 99% of people already have a component DVD player for their tv) not something i want to pay for if i already have one
- Built In Storage (Hard Drive)
My mac has lots of Hard Drive space and i can add more if i need it. With iTV i can send anything to the TV that quicktime can play (i assume). Again since my computer already has lots of storage i don't want to pay for more and if i did need more space i would rather add space to my computer then to a set top box.
- Input for digital cable
well again it would be nice if it was a set top box as well but thats not really in apples interest so probably not going to happen.
Some analogies:
- It's like an wireless XBOX 360, except it doesn't play games or DVD's.
- It's like a networked DVD player, without the DVD player.
well I'm guessing that the iTV would have a remote (otherwise it will suck) so for DVD's if the DVD is in your mac press play on remote and it goes, that easy. maybe a slight annoyance if your computer is in another room but not hard. But i must point out again that 99% of people have a DVD player, the goal of iTV is to move away from conventional media.
This is slightly off topic but i would much rather pay for a (blue ray/HD-DVD) burner for my computer then a component unit for my tv as i would get much more use out of my (blue ray/HD-DVD) burner with "iTV" then i would ever get out of a component unit plus save me a few $$ by not having to buy both types of units
I'd rather spend $300 on almost ANY OTHER electronics product.
What a disappointment... I guess Apple is just trying to stave off the competition from the media capabilities of Windows Media Center and XBOX.
i guess were on different pages here but i think this unit is an excellent extension of my computer. i will admit i don't really care about recording aspect of the unit because i just download programs if i miss them. Thats the main reason why i would love to stream them to my tv with out moving my computer so i can enjoy all my programs in my living room.
I'm very interested in this unit and i KNOW I'm not alone
(BTW timswim78 just using your post to hi-light my point of view nothing personal :) )
arkitect
Apr 15, 11:52 AM
Erroneous idea to you, but that's just like, your opinion, man.
Demonstrably not true? That's funny, I keep looking in my church bulletin for some fun anti-gay rallies or barbeques but I'm not finding them. I do find that the Catholic high school is going to have a conference on preventing anti-gay bullying, gasp! I bet they're going to pull out that old chestnut from the Catechism, "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."
SO MUCH HATE!
Not so much hate as intolerance.
Since you insist on not telling the whole story I'll then do it for you.
The CCC (CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH):
Your quote (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12397686&postcount=184) above from paragraph 2358 is bracketed by:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
If the Catholic Church was truly accepting, please tell why only homosexuals are called to chastity?
I am genuinely interested to hear.
Demonstrably not true? That's funny, I keep looking in my church bulletin for some fun anti-gay rallies or barbeques but I'm not finding them. I do find that the Catholic high school is going to have a conference on preventing anti-gay bullying, gasp! I bet they're going to pull out that old chestnut from the Catechism, "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."
SO MUCH HATE!
Not so much hate as intolerance.
Since you insist on not telling the whole story I'll then do it for you.
The CCC (CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH):
Your quote (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12397686&postcount=184) above from paragraph 2358 is bracketed by:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
If the Catholic Church was truly accepting, please tell why only homosexuals are called to chastity?
I am genuinely interested to hear.
No comments:
Post a Comment