firestarter
Mar 13, 03:34 PM
That is not true at all,it's not a binary choice.As I've said before the most effective answer in the short term is to stop wasting energy unnecessarily.
Let me guess, that involves overturning governments and the acceptance of a pastoral lifestyle based on Anarcho-Marxism, right?
http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/25-TTG-Nuclear-Power.pdf
That study (by the 'National Petroleum Council') is interesting. They suggest that increased nuclear use offsets coal use, as they're both 'base load' providers, with oil/gas topping off supply peaks. A few comments about it that I'd make:
- It's talking about a scenario with nuclear energy. I was arguing with a 'no nuclear' advocate. While the point the paper makes (that nuclear offsets coal) is an interesting one that may be valid, the reverse (that the removal of nuclear would not increase oil/gas use) assumption cannot be made.
- In the UK at least, gas power stations are being used for base load generation. (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/26eb22d6-fe52-11de-9340-00144feab49a.html#axzz1GVurvRcH) This scenario isn't considered in the paper's 'coal offsetting' stance.
- The cost/benefit of oil/gas is not made, and the scenario of peak oil (http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-peak-oil-is-real-2011-2)is not covered.
- No discussion about alternatives to oil/gas for peak provision takes place. Vehicle to grid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid) (for example) is likely to be much more viable in 20 years time.
Let me guess, that involves overturning governments and the acceptance of a pastoral lifestyle based on Anarcho-Marxism, right?
http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/25-TTG-Nuclear-Power.pdf
That study (by the 'National Petroleum Council') is interesting. They suggest that increased nuclear use offsets coal use, as they're both 'base load' providers, with oil/gas topping off supply peaks. A few comments about it that I'd make:
- It's talking about a scenario with nuclear energy. I was arguing with a 'no nuclear' advocate. While the point the paper makes (that nuclear offsets coal) is an interesting one that may be valid, the reverse (that the removal of nuclear would not increase oil/gas use) assumption cannot be made.
- In the UK at least, gas power stations are being used for base load generation. (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/26eb22d6-fe52-11de-9340-00144feab49a.html#axzz1GVurvRcH) This scenario isn't considered in the paper's 'coal offsetting' stance.
- The cost/benefit of oil/gas is not made, and the scenario of peak oil (http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-peak-oil-is-real-2011-2)is not covered.
- No discussion about alternatives to oil/gas for peak provision takes place. Vehicle to grid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid) (for example) is likely to be much more viable in 20 years time.
leomac08
Mar 11, 07:25 PM
I pray that this will not turn into another Chernobyl situation.
how far is Sendai from Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
so much radiation!!!:eek:
how far is Sendai from Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
so much radiation!!!:eek:
citizenzen
Apr 23, 02:57 PM
The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
I haven't yet heard a good argument from a theist that used the principles of entropy or thermodynamics.
Could you put forth one of those points?
I haven't yet heard a good argument from a theist that used the principles of entropy or thermodynamics.
Could you put forth one of those points?
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.
ArizonaKid
Aug 29, 11:08 AM
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?
Apple does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?
As a business professional, there most certainly is a capitalistic argument for environmentally friendly businesses.
I will provide the link this time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
This is something Apple can improve. So why not go for it?
Apple does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?
As a business professional, there most certainly is a capitalistic argument for environmentally friendly businesses.
I will provide the link this time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
This is something Apple can improve. So why not go for it?
skottichan
Apr 15, 12:12 PM
Right, because civil marriage is required for gays to have sex with each other. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You can have sex with whomever you want to.
We're talking about gay Catholics here, who ostensibly value being Catholic more than they value satisfying their sexual desires in a manner compatible with their sexuality. There is no theocratic regime forcing them to live as Catholics in good standing - it is a personal lifestyle choice, if you will.
The problem is, I can't get married. I'm not allowed. Adopt? Not allowed (and the Catholic church has fought some very public battles to stop gays from adopting).
Plus, the Church does not recognize gay marriage where it is allowed.
I miss the good old days where I was sent to a parochial girl's boarding school, to "help me come back to God", by my step-father. Probably the best thing he unintentionally did for me. Thankfully, I suffered no bullying in school, since most of the other girls were there for similar reasons.
I am a gay woman in her 30's, and I was devoutly Catholic until about 25 (my grandparents still hold leaving the Church against me).
We're talking about gay Catholics here, who ostensibly value being Catholic more than they value satisfying their sexual desires in a manner compatible with their sexuality. There is no theocratic regime forcing them to live as Catholics in good standing - it is a personal lifestyle choice, if you will.
The problem is, I can't get married. I'm not allowed. Adopt? Not allowed (and the Catholic church has fought some very public battles to stop gays from adopting).
Plus, the Church does not recognize gay marriage where it is allowed.
I miss the good old days where I was sent to a parochial girl's boarding school, to "help me come back to God", by my step-father. Probably the best thing he unintentionally did for me. Thankfully, I suffered no bullying in school, since most of the other girls were there for similar reasons.
I am a gay woman in her 30's, and I was devoutly Catholic until about 25 (my grandparents still hold leaving the Church against me).
EricNau
Sep 20, 08:28 PM
Where's that number coming from?
For simplicity let's make it an even $160 and assume 4 week/month. That's $40/week of TV Shows = 20 unique shows per week = ~3 episodes/day. This assumes no season/series discounts.
Don't forget that for cable/satellite, you still pay for it regardless if the show you want to watch is a rerun, so perhaps a better way to look at it is seasons of shows. The typical weekly show has 13-26 episodes/season and thus would be available at iTMS for $25-$50/year. Assuming the typical $55 cable bill you cite, this could easily add up to 12-24 seasons of shows per year (depending on # of episodes & discounts).
At $150/month you'd be able to buy 36-72 different seasons of shows from iTunes throughout the year. That's a boatload of TV.
B
I was assuming this "family of four" included younger kids (possibly one age 4 and one age 9). ...They do watch a boatload of TV. Between the two of them they could easily watch 8 different series.
Now for the parents...
I would assume they each have one or two daily show(s) that they like to watch (which is where I was counting most of the monthly cost). For example, "The Daily Show" is $20 a month multiplied by 3 different shows, equals $60/month. Plus, it would also be expected that they should watch a few series (probably at least 5 between the two).
Perhaps it was a exaggeration, but I think I proved my original point that buying your TV shows from iTunes could easily exceed your monthly cable bill (maybe not for a single person, but once you get a whole family watching TV, it isn't that hard).
...Plus, how do you get your local/national news and sports shows? ...and no, news & sports "highlights" from iTunes don't count.
For simplicity let's make it an even $160 and assume 4 week/month. That's $40/week of TV Shows = 20 unique shows per week = ~3 episodes/day. This assumes no season/series discounts.
Don't forget that for cable/satellite, you still pay for it regardless if the show you want to watch is a rerun, so perhaps a better way to look at it is seasons of shows. The typical weekly show has 13-26 episodes/season and thus would be available at iTMS for $25-$50/year. Assuming the typical $55 cable bill you cite, this could easily add up to 12-24 seasons of shows per year (depending on # of episodes & discounts).
At $150/month you'd be able to buy 36-72 different seasons of shows from iTunes throughout the year. That's a boatload of TV.
B
I was assuming this "family of four" included younger kids (possibly one age 4 and one age 9). ...They do watch a boatload of TV. Between the two of them they could easily watch 8 different series.
Now for the parents...
I would assume they each have one or two daily show(s) that they like to watch (which is where I was counting most of the monthly cost). For example, "The Daily Show" is $20 a month multiplied by 3 different shows, equals $60/month. Plus, it would also be expected that they should watch a few series (probably at least 5 between the two).
Perhaps it was a exaggeration, but I think I proved my original point that buying your TV shows from iTunes could easily exceed your monthly cable bill (maybe not for a single person, but once you get a whole family watching TV, it isn't that hard).
...Plus, how do you get your local/national news and sports shows? ...and no, news & sports "highlights" from iTunes don't count.
gopher
Oct 9, 07:28 AM
If Windows XP didn't have so much spyware attached to it, and required registration, and the insecurity that Microsoft is so famous for on its systems (yes there are still as many bugs and holes in XP for hackers to get through as in Windows 2000 and before), and the fact remains none of the source code is open, where at least some of Mac OS X is open and free for development purposes, I would have gone to Microsoft. Speed doesn't matter a hill of beans if your machine is so insecure you can't trust your bank numbers to it. Macs are faster in some cases than Windows XP, while slower in others and they maintain a level of security that doesn't require a firewall or anti-virus program anywhere near as much as Windows XP does.
I'd rather fly an airplane than a space shuttle with o-rings that leak.
What's more, who really wants to be forced to support Microsoft?
With a Mac you can avoid Microsoft altogether.
I'd rather fly an airplane than a space shuttle with o-rings that leak.
What's more, who really wants to be forced to support Microsoft?
With a Mac you can avoid Microsoft altogether.
CuttyShark
Apr 13, 12:40 AM
But it seems to me the man who uses tools is just a fool!:D Great song BTW! Songs of Yesterday
;) I soooooo wish I could fart an edit right outta my head. Life would be so much easier. Unfortunately, it somehow has to go through my hands, a mouse, keyboard, FCP, AVID, etc. before it's done.
Ahhh...such is life... ;)
Cheers!!
;) I soooooo wish I could fart an edit right outta my head. Life would be so much easier. Unfortunately, it somehow has to go through my hands, a mouse, keyboard, FCP, AVID, etc. before it's done.
Ahhh...such is life... ;)
Cheers!!
ImageWrangler
Oct 9, 03:33 PM
Probably, unless Apple recognizes the competition and responds by:
- Removal of 3g cellular restrictions not technically motivated at least outside of the US
- Allowing at least music apps like Spotify to run in the background
- Improving the app approval process to become more like the Android process
- Flash support in Safari (with an option to disable this)
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
Hahaha! I love it! A humor writer! For which night time show do you right your jokes for because these are all awesomely funny, I mean, only a humor writer could write such thing so ludicrous and out there. Now, please only take this is constructive criticism as some of your jokes you wrote aren't as funny as others, I mean, you're clearly not at the top escholon and you're honing your funny writing chops but, as a start, with such absurd one-liners as this I think your future is bright, especially for say parody or absurdist or non-logical humor... brilliant stuff. Keep up the good work. Unless you were being serious, in which case, try a magnifying glass.
- Removal of 3g cellular restrictions not technically motivated at least outside of the US
- Allowing at least music apps like Spotify to run in the background
- Improving the app approval process to become more like the Android process
- Flash support in Safari (with an option to disable this)
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
Hahaha! I love it! A humor writer! For which night time show do you right your jokes for because these are all awesomely funny, I mean, only a humor writer could write such thing so ludicrous and out there. Now, please only take this is constructive criticism as some of your jokes you wrote aren't as funny as others, I mean, you're clearly not at the top escholon and you're honing your funny writing chops but, as a start, with such absurd one-liners as this I think your future is bright, especially for say parody or absurdist or non-logical humor... brilliant stuff. Keep up the good work. Unless you were being serious, in which case, try a magnifying glass.
alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
Alex ant has made some good points on why Macs are a poor buy. They are so much slower and less stable then PC's these days according to everything I read.
Macs aren't a poor buy, though... they're only a poor buy if your primary concern is maximum performance. I doubt they're any less stable than PCs. They are slower, but in my experience they are much more enjoyable computers to use. You will have to weigh your need for performance against this.
Alex ant has made some good points on why Macs are a poor buy. They are so much slower and less stable then PC's these days according to everything I read.
Macs aren't a poor buy, though... they're only a poor buy if your primary concern is maximum performance. I doubt they're any less stable than PCs. They are slower, but in my experience they are much more enjoyable computers to use. You will have to weigh your need for performance against this.
Multimedia
Oct 23, 09:54 PM
And now for the update... Dell re-shipped via UPS next-day. Still took until yesterday apparently to actually ship from Dell. But it's here. I just plugged it in and everything looks just fine. No dead/stuck pixels I can see. But then again, that's the way my first one was I bought nearly a year ago. After about 3 months, *POP!* one blue stuck pixel. Hehe, these two screens look maaaavolous together. :D Would it be gloating too much if I posted a pic? Heheheh... Maybe I'll bust out the camera after I clean off my desk. ;)Holy Molly now 30" Dells are only $1279.20 (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productlisting.aspx?c=us&category_id=6198&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs). They just lowered the list to $1599.
Any chance we can get a price adjustment?
We paid $1349 last week. That's another $75.60 less including tax. Man I could of had an iPod Shuffle for that. :(
10.24.06 - New C2D MacBookPro's announced.
AV-I phoned Dell this morning and got a $70 credit toward my 30". Wouldn't give me the $5.60 sales tax but got $70 instead of the usual $50 they said. Me so happy. That means I got the Dell 30" including sales tax for $1398.32. :D :p :)
Any chance we can get a price adjustment?
We paid $1349 last week. That's another $75.60 less including tax. Man I could of had an iPod Shuffle for that. :(
10.24.06 - New C2D MacBookPro's announced.
AV-I phoned Dell this morning and got a $70 credit toward my 30". Wouldn't give me the $5.60 sales tax but got $70 instead of the usual $50 they said. Me so happy. That means I got the Dell 30" including sales tax for $1398.32. :D :p :)
MacQuest
Jul 12, 05:55 AM
Haven't read through all the posts, but I've always believed and said [since Intel's unveiling of it's Core line-up roadmap a few months ago, even before re-naming it Core 2] that Woodcrest would be used in Mac Pros.
CONROE WILL BE USED IN A NEW LINE OF CONSUMER TARGETED [gamers and people who like the option of being able to upgrade, even if they probably won't] MAC TOWERS. Go ahead, let the "this is just another headless iMac rumor again" flame-fest start :rolleyes:. IF IT DOESN'T HAVE A SCREEN BUILT IN TO AN ALL IN ONE DESIGN, IT'S NOT AN IMAC DAMNIT!!! :mad:
"Mac [whatever]", or maybe just "Mac", will probably have 1-2 models in the $1000 - $1500 range. If there's 3 models, which I doubt because they'll probably want to keep a $500 price difference between this and the lowest Mac Pro model @ $2000 [assuming Apple keeps the current pricing of the PowerMac line-up], it'll be a $1000 - $1700 range. These might sport the same aluminim alloy enclosure as the Mac Pro, but I'm betting that they'll use a different material, and possibly form-factor all-together to further distinguish this consumer tower line from the Mac Pro line.
I would really like to see a consumer priced, Conroe powered Mac tower [maybe it'll be a mini tower] with the same black finish as the current black MacBook.
That would be cool because then we would have 3 consumer Macs [not including the MacBooks]; 2 in white, the Mac mini [yes, I'm aware that it has a silver trim :rolleyes:] and the iMac, and 1 in black [this new Mac consumer tower]. Maybe they'll offer it in white too... as long as the white doesn't turn yellow as reported with the white MacBooks [which has already been resolved], that would be cool too, but I doubt this option... but maybe. :p
Oh the possibilities!!! :D
EDIT:
Just read the AppleInsider article and saw this:
"The new systems, which will succeed the Power Mac G5 at the forefront of the company's product matrix, will also be available in a single processor configuration for a substantially reduced cost..."
The key part of that statement is "available in a single processor configuration for a substantially reduced cost". I'll bet that THAT will be the consumer priced, Conroe powered tower that I'm talking about, will NOT be Woodcrest powered, and won't be called Mac Pro [possibly Mac Pro mini, but I don't quite think so], as they won't be "Pro" class workstations powered by Intel's server class chips.
Just my 2 cents... ;)
CONROE WILL BE USED IN A NEW LINE OF CONSUMER TARGETED [gamers and people who like the option of being able to upgrade, even if they probably won't] MAC TOWERS. Go ahead, let the "this is just another headless iMac rumor again" flame-fest start :rolleyes:. IF IT DOESN'T HAVE A SCREEN BUILT IN TO AN ALL IN ONE DESIGN, IT'S NOT AN IMAC DAMNIT!!! :mad:
"Mac [whatever]", or maybe just "Mac", will probably have 1-2 models in the $1000 - $1500 range. If there's 3 models, which I doubt because they'll probably want to keep a $500 price difference between this and the lowest Mac Pro model @ $2000 [assuming Apple keeps the current pricing of the PowerMac line-up], it'll be a $1000 - $1700 range. These might sport the same aluminim alloy enclosure as the Mac Pro, but I'm betting that they'll use a different material, and possibly form-factor all-together to further distinguish this consumer tower line from the Mac Pro line.
I would really like to see a consumer priced, Conroe powered Mac tower [maybe it'll be a mini tower] with the same black finish as the current black MacBook.
That would be cool because then we would have 3 consumer Macs [not including the MacBooks]; 2 in white, the Mac mini [yes, I'm aware that it has a silver trim :rolleyes:] and the iMac, and 1 in black [this new Mac consumer tower]. Maybe they'll offer it in white too... as long as the white doesn't turn yellow as reported with the white MacBooks [which has already been resolved], that would be cool too, but I doubt this option... but maybe. :p
Oh the possibilities!!! :D
EDIT:
Just read the AppleInsider article and saw this:
"The new systems, which will succeed the Power Mac G5 at the forefront of the company's product matrix, will also be available in a single processor configuration for a substantially reduced cost..."
The key part of that statement is "available in a single processor configuration for a substantially reduced cost". I'll bet that THAT will be the consumer priced, Conroe powered tower that I'm talking about, will NOT be Woodcrest powered, and won't be called Mac Pro [possibly Mac Pro mini, but I don't quite think so], as they won't be "Pro" class workstations powered by Intel's server class chips.
Just my 2 cents... ;)
jiggie2g
Jul 12, 05:47 PM
those things make no functional difference, you completely missed the point which was totally about motherboard design, which other than the case and sometimes the cpu is always unique on macs no matter if they are ppc or intel
This is no longer the case Hector , same CPU , same stupid Intel Chipset , a custom design Mac Mobo is no different from an Asus / DFI / MSI board , in a sense they are all customized however all derived from the same chipset. So this make no difference other then small tweaks apple might make , just like the other vendors make thiers through bios updates. Apple is not going to get a custom Core 2 /Xenon , aside from the case / mainboard / OSX , there is nothing in a mac i can't buy on newegg.
This is no longer the case Hector , same CPU , same stupid Intel Chipset , a custom design Mac Mobo is no different from an Asus / DFI / MSI board , in a sense they are all customized however all derived from the same chipset. So this make no difference other then small tweaks apple might make , just like the other vendors make thiers through bios updates. Apple is not going to get a custom Core 2 /Xenon , aside from the case / mainboard / OSX , there is nothing in a mac i can't buy on newegg.
sammachin
Mar 18, 05:00 AM
Actually the way they are most likely doing this and the way most carriers do it is using some deep packet inspection kit or maybe even a transparent proxy.
They can look for browsing traffic on port 80 then simply pick out any users where the user agent string is that of a computer OS so Windows|Mac|Linux.
2 options to get around it are: either change your browsers UA to that of the iPhone although this will often give you mobile sites or better still send everything down a VPN, that way its encrypted and they can;t see what your doing just how many bytes :-) High VPN usage shouldn't be odd either as the iPhone has a VPN client so you could feasibly be using that.
(Used to work in a carrier designing these systems so I should know!)
They can look for browsing traffic on port 80 then simply pick out any users where the user agent string is that of a computer OS so Windows|Mac|Linux.
2 options to get around it are: either change your browsers UA to that of the iPhone although this will often give you mobile sites or better still send everything down a VPN, that way its encrypted and they can;t see what your doing just how many bytes :-) High VPN usage shouldn't be odd either as the iPhone has a VPN client so you could feasibly be using that.
(Used to work in a carrier designing these systems so I should know!)
Hankster
May 6, 07:03 PM
I have the iPhone 3GS, it's not ATT. It's the iPhone. Plus, I rarely get voice drops, but I do lose data connection A LOT. Sometimes I have to reboot my iPhone 2-4 times a day just to get messages/email/etc.
But, people need to understand it's not ATT it's the iPhone that doesn't have good quality connection. Most of my friends have ATT and BlackBerrys and they ALWAYS have service and data even when my iPhone is dead in the water.
But, people need to understand it's not ATT it's the iPhone that doesn't have good quality connection. Most of my friends have ATT and BlackBerrys and they ALWAYS have service and data even when my iPhone is dead in the water.
Drewnrupe
Sep 21, 10:43 AM
I havent gone through and taken numbers but it appears that a large number of the people demanding that this device should provide DVR functionalty already have a Tivo - how many posts decrying the lack of DVR end up " I'll keep my Tivo " ?
Isnt that the point - 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.
In these days of multiple TV households , viewing on computer screens and ipods it only makes sense to centralize your media. This way we can say good bye to the "3 receiver satalite deals" and "sycronized Tivos" that result in multiple boxes in every room.
Once you get past the concept that your TV media source should originate in the place where you historically viewed TV all the pieces fall into place.
Before all this iTV talk came about I had already put an airport in the bedroom to listen to internet radio via airTunes. When considering Tivo i discovered that lifetime licenses were not an option any more and did not want to take on another "small monthly fee". I now have an EyeTv 200 linked to my Mac in the office and plug an eyehome into the airport express sitting in the bedroom - it works great for me and was selected as a direct alternative to Tivo - it just seemed right to have this located by the computer and hot add more electronics to the bedroom.
Yes there are limitations - the greatest at the moment being that i cannot use the eyehome to watch iTunes pyrchased Movies ( hence the need for the iTV/Teleport).
Yes I cannot schedule recording from the Tv , but I can from the office which is usually where I am when i think to record something, and also if I am out of the house i can schedule recording via the internet which is great.
Digital channels are missing but generally the channels up above the 100 mark are not interesting to me and HD would be nice for the few programs I watch that provide it, but these are limitations of the solution that I am using - NOT THE CONCEPT.
The computer provides the central storage point for your media. It gets to the TV via iTV or some equivalent Distribution system. The media itself can come from your DVDs , a DVR linked to the computer, downloaded from the internet, or your old Betamax plugged into an encoder digitizing to the computer.
If Eyetv doesnt cut it as your DVR, then there can and I am sure will be other options - hey even Tivo - but again i hold that it should be part of the central media storage , not sitting under the TV - or worse still under several Tvs.
For as long as we continue to try and combine these functions of media source, storage and replay into single boxes we will always have duplicattion of effort and boxes.
People that wtill think they need ANOTHER computer, or Another disk drive or another dvd player next to their TV and that iTV should include all this are just holding on to an historical concept or an entertainment center havign to be centered int the living room.
Where you watch any of this media there should only be a screen , speakers , and as little else as possible - iTV ( or for now eyehome) - is pretty little !!!
I think this realy is the missing link that makes a computer-centric household media solution viable and appealing to the majority of even single computer households. I certainly would not have purchased an eyeTv if eyeHome didnt exist , and this is the same reason I will not purchase a movie until either eyehome can show it on my TV or iTV arrives to do the same.
Drew
Isnt that the point - 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.
In these days of multiple TV households , viewing on computer screens and ipods it only makes sense to centralize your media. This way we can say good bye to the "3 receiver satalite deals" and "sycronized Tivos" that result in multiple boxes in every room.
Once you get past the concept that your TV media source should originate in the place where you historically viewed TV all the pieces fall into place.
Before all this iTV talk came about I had already put an airport in the bedroom to listen to internet radio via airTunes. When considering Tivo i discovered that lifetime licenses were not an option any more and did not want to take on another "small monthly fee". I now have an EyeTv 200 linked to my Mac in the office and plug an eyehome into the airport express sitting in the bedroom - it works great for me and was selected as a direct alternative to Tivo - it just seemed right to have this located by the computer and hot add more electronics to the bedroom.
Yes there are limitations - the greatest at the moment being that i cannot use the eyehome to watch iTunes pyrchased Movies ( hence the need for the iTV/Teleport).
Yes I cannot schedule recording from the Tv , but I can from the office which is usually where I am when i think to record something, and also if I am out of the house i can schedule recording via the internet which is great.
Digital channels are missing but generally the channels up above the 100 mark are not interesting to me and HD would be nice for the few programs I watch that provide it, but these are limitations of the solution that I am using - NOT THE CONCEPT.
The computer provides the central storage point for your media. It gets to the TV via iTV or some equivalent Distribution system. The media itself can come from your DVDs , a DVR linked to the computer, downloaded from the internet, or your old Betamax plugged into an encoder digitizing to the computer.
If Eyetv doesnt cut it as your DVR, then there can and I am sure will be other options - hey even Tivo - but again i hold that it should be part of the central media storage , not sitting under the TV - or worse still under several Tvs.
For as long as we continue to try and combine these functions of media source, storage and replay into single boxes we will always have duplicattion of effort and boxes.
People that wtill think they need ANOTHER computer, or Another disk drive or another dvd player next to their TV and that iTV should include all this are just holding on to an historical concept or an entertainment center havign to be centered int the living room.
Where you watch any of this media there should only be a screen , speakers , and as little else as possible - iTV ( or for now eyehome) - is pretty little !!!
I think this realy is the missing link that makes a computer-centric household media solution viable and appealing to the majority of even single computer households. I certainly would not have purchased an eyeTv if eyeHome didnt exist , and this is the same reason I will not purchase a movie until either eyehome can show it on my TV or iTV arrives to do the same.
Drew
rasmasyean
Mar 15, 09:49 AM
you think it would be 'pretty cool' to relocate 130 million people to some 'barren area' in a foreign land when there is absolutely no reasons for it?
and you think it would be "practical"????
Obviously, it wouln't be "all at once" and these types of things never happen in one single "foreign land". But history is wrought with many resettling of peoples, the Jews is just one example. This actually happens a lot for "unnatural" disasters like war and stuff.
If this situation blows up more and more, heck, humans haven't even dealt with such a potential disaster outcome before. It's actually purely "unnatural" at it's roots. There isn't any natural deposit of refined radioactive uranium/plutonium/whatever that we've encountered on earth before. This is purely man-made and is not supposed to exist. I mean, what is there to do in such a case? I know GM, Microsoft, Motorola et al may have a field day if the Japanese just disapeared, but hey, there's added value elsewhere that many nations would value in having their human and physical assets close.
and you think it would be "practical"????
Obviously, it wouln't be "all at once" and these types of things never happen in one single "foreign land". But history is wrought with many resettling of peoples, the Jews is just one example. This actually happens a lot for "unnatural" disasters like war and stuff.
If this situation blows up more and more, heck, humans haven't even dealt with such a potential disaster outcome before. It's actually purely "unnatural" at it's roots. There isn't any natural deposit of refined radioactive uranium/plutonium/whatever that we've encountered on earth before. This is purely man-made and is not supposed to exist. I mean, what is there to do in such a case? I know GM, Microsoft, Motorola et al may have a field day if the Japanese just disapeared, but hey, there's added value elsewhere that many nations would value in having their human and physical assets close.
Alaerian
Apr 5, 06:00 PM
Don't read so much into it. Macs are perfectly capable of both copy/paste and Alt-Tab. However, Mac simply uses Command-Tab - Command is in the same place as the Alt key.
Under the Apple menu on the top toolbar, you can access both recently used programs and recently used files, just the same as in the Windows Start menu. It's essentially the same thing, but better.
Under the Apple menu on the top toolbar, you can access both recently used programs and recently used files, just the same as in the Windows Start menu. It's essentially the same thing, but better.
mscriv
Apr 12, 09:52 AM
The biggest hassle was keyboard differences for me. Some keys I use quite often like "home" and "end" are missing.
My Mac keyboard has "home" and "end" keys. They function differently in basic use from Windows though. If you are talking about being able to jump to the beginning and end of a line of text (like in Word) then the Mac shortcut is command + Left or Right Arrow depending on whether you are going to the beginning or end of the line.
My Mac keyboard has "home" and "end" keys. They function differently in basic use from Windows though. If you are talking about being able to jump to the beginning and end of a line of text (like in Word) then the Mac shortcut is command + Left or Right Arrow depending on whether you are going to the beginning or end of the line.
AppliedVisual
Oct 26, 10:07 AM
Just convince Apple to buy SGI.
At the rate SGI is going, I could probably buy SGI myself for whatever is in my pocket within the next year. Talk about a company that failed to follow the industry and adapt with the times... No point in anyone buying them, the only thing keeping them afloat is the few tidbits of technology they've licensed over the years, which is all just about obsolete now anyway. SGI hasn't had a new, innovative product in over 10 years. I think the first sign of the end was when SGI released their attempt at Windows workstations back in '98 and they were 1/3 the price and more than twice as powerful as any of their desktop Irix workstations. I ran a quad-CPU SGI540 for several years as a development server and render box with a dual-CPU SGI 340 as a workstation. Picked both of them up second-hand for a steal... Very nice systems, too bad SGI never followed through with support for them.
Sad too because I essentially started doing commercial 3D graphics work on an SGI Indigo. Owned various SGIs over the years - Indy, a few Indigo2 models, O2 (crap), Octane... 1 Origin 200 server. Never considered buying Fuel or Tezro (their last two workstation attempts) -- way too expensive and very much underpowered compared to PC/Mac.
At the rate SGI is going, I could probably buy SGI myself for whatever is in my pocket within the next year. Talk about a company that failed to follow the industry and adapt with the times... No point in anyone buying them, the only thing keeping them afloat is the few tidbits of technology they've licensed over the years, which is all just about obsolete now anyway. SGI hasn't had a new, innovative product in over 10 years. I think the first sign of the end was when SGI released their attempt at Windows workstations back in '98 and they were 1/3 the price and more than twice as powerful as any of their desktop Irix workstations. I ran a quad-CPU SGI540 for several years as a development server and render box with a dual-CPU SGI 340 as a workstation. Picked both of them up second-hand for a steal... Very nice systems, too bad SGI never followed through with support for them.
Sad too because I essentially started doing commercial 3D graphics work on an SGI Indigo. Owned various SGIs over the years - Indy, a few Indigo2 models, O2 (crap), Octane... 1 Origin 200 server. Never considered buying Fuel or Tezro (their last two workstation attempts) -- way too expensive and very much underpowered compared to PC/Mac.
Tobsterius
Apr 13, 07:57 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
The concerns expressed here have been echoed by many who have attended the Supermeet.
FCP needed an overhaul and it got it. No complaints there.
The concerns expressed here have been echoed by many who have attended the Supermeet.
FCP needed an overhaul and it got it. No complaints there.
takao
Mar 15, 07:02 AM
the german government seems to have decided to put the plans for prolonging the life of it's current nuclearplants on hold for 3 months to evaluate the safety, risks and if the switch away from nuclear can't be accelerated (germany already consideres nuclear power only as a 'bridge technology' until renewable power forms can take over)
and as a direct consequence they have decided to shut off all reactors built prior to 1981: all in all seven nuclear reactors remain shut down for the next 3 months with a complete maximum nuclear output of 7000 MW
an obvious ploy IMHO to win the upcoming local elections in Baden-W�rtenberg which are in danger of being lost because of the pro-nuclear stance of the CDU-FDP coalition
the question which comes up though is: if 7 nuclear plants can easily taken off the grid for 3 months without consequences to electricity supply... why exactly are they deemed so important ?
and as a direct consequence they have decided to shut off all reactors built prior to 1981: all in all seven nuclear reactors remain shut down for the next 3 months with a complete maximum nuclear output of 7000 MW
an obvious ploy IMHO to win the upcoming local elections in Baden-W�rtenberg which are in danger of being lost because of the pro-nuclear stance of the CDU-FDP coalition
the question which comes up though is: if 7 nuclear plants can easily taken off the grid for 3 months without consequences to electricity supply... why exactly are they deemed so important ?
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 03:37 PM
We're both in agreement here....I wasn't implying that we send of bags of GM rice to Africa without making sure it was safe, I was only saying that it's wrong not to research an idea that could (in theory) save so many lives.
For the record, I'm also not a fan of stem cell research if it kills the fetus, but I think it's maddening that GW won't fund research into harvesting stem cells WITHOUT killing the fetus....mind-blowing.
Ok, it looks like we agree. My point was just we should be careful so we don't kill off the planet while trying to save it.
Back to the topic; I think Greenpeace's statement is counterproductive. We have huge problems here on this planet and we just dont have the time to "polish the brass". I am afraid that people think that as long as they do something for the enviroment they are home free. That is just not true.
We dont save the planet by buying "greener" computers. True, it helps. But things are so f***d up right now, that we need to concentrate on the big issues, e.g. rainforest being chopped down, extinction of species, and most of all our consumption of fossile fuel.
Diverting the focus away from these issues, is almost as bad as ********** up the earth in the first place. Greenpeace has developed to something quite different than it started out as.
For the record, I'm also not a fan of stem cell research if it kills the fetus, but I think it's maddening that GW won't fund research into harvesting stem cells WITHOUT killing the fetus....mind-blowing.
Ok, it looks like we agree. My point was just we should be careful so we don't kill off the planet while trying to save it.
Back to the topic; I think Greenpeace's statement is counterproductive. We have huge problems here on this planet and we just dont have the time to "polish the brass". I am afraid that people think that as long as they do something for the enviroment they are home free. That is just not true.
We dont save the planet by buying "greener" computers. True, it helps. But things are so f***d up right now, that we need to concentrate on the big issues, e.g. rainforest being chopped down, extinction of species, and most of all our consumption of fossile fuel.
Diverting the focus away from these issues, is almost as bad as ********** up the earth in the first place. Greenpeace has developed to something quite different than it started out as.
No comments:
Post a Comment