nacnud
Sep 12, 06:24 PM
This iTV seems like a very interesting device, first off it appears to be a HD wireless media streaming box like the Hauppauge Media MVP but hopefuly with a nicer UI.
However another thing also jumps out, if can you add an ipod via the USB or even an external hard drive then this could give consumers access to the iTunes Store without a computer. That has got to be worth a lot in terms of possible revenue and growing the market rather than just the market share.
However another thing also jumps out, if can you add an ipod via the USB or even an external hard drive then this could give consumers access to the iTunes Store without a computer. That has got to be worth a lot in terms of possible revenue and growing the market rather than just the market share.
Gelfin
Mar 25, 01:26 PM
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 02:43 PM
It lies at the supposed heart of Joseph Nicolosi's and NARTH's work. It's nonsense.
"There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence". Anything outside that, obviously barely qualifies as evidence. Not wishing to get bogged down in a tired to and fro about semantics or anything...
So what? That's exactly what he is. He bilks money from deeply conflicted people who feel ashamed of themselves. When the Surgeon General of the United States releases a report saying that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed", then you can be assured that those on the opposite side of the argument have a bill of goods to sell.
Let me ask you an important question. Is there any evidence, testimonial or reasoned argument that would lead you to change your mind?
Is there any reasoned argument that would change my mind? I don't know, but I do know two things: One, ad hominem attacks are fallacious. Two, there's no argument anywhere in the post I'm now answering.
"There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence". Anything outside that, obviously barely qualifies as evidence. Not wishing to get bogged down in a tired to and fro about semantics or anything...
So what? That's exactly what he is. He bilks money from deeply conflicted people who feel ashamed of themselves. When the Surgeon General of the United States releases a report saying that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed", then you can be assured that those on the opposite side of the argument have a bill of goods to sell.
Let me ask you an important question. Is there any evidence, testimonial or reasoned argument that would lead you to change your mind?
Is there any reasoned argument that would change my mind? I don't know, but I do know two things: One, ad hominem attacks are fallacious. Two, there's no argument anywhere in the post I'm now answering.
teasphere
Apr 13, 09:22 AM
The product looks good for what it is, and I read most of the comments here... while I'm not a video guy I am an artist and IT professional and I do have to agree that Apple is strangely moving away from the core pro market that was very loyal. I have seen more and more artists move back to PCs lately and even though I have been moving the other direction, I can't fully blame them.
I know Apple has a plan and they stick to their guns, but I just think they may be shooting themselves in the foot by going so fully consumer market. Avid has a lot more as far as hardcore features and scalability. Apple has basically dropped their server line and they are on a path of dumbing down many apps to fit a more iPad/App market. They are still powerful and "pro" apps but much of the scalability and truly "pro" features seem to be dwindling day by day. That's my concern.
I know Apple has a plan and they stick to their guns, but I just think they may be shooting themselves in the foot by going so fully consumer market. Avid has a lot more as far as hardcore features and scalability. Apple has basically dropped their server line and they are on a path of dumbing down many apps to fit a more iPad/App market. They are still powerful and "pro" apps but much of the scalability and truly "pro" features seem to be dwindling day by day. That's my concern.
eleven59
Apr 10, 11:00 AM
This must be me but I've never cared to have a program maximized on my Mac... Not even games. I always prefer to see multiple programs so I can click easily on any when needed.... It's also nice that just hovering over one let's you scroll thru it without actually clicking on it....
And resizing.. That takes me less than a second to drag and resize a window to what I want it to be.. if I even have to
And resizing.. That takes me less than a second to drag and resize a window to what I want it to be.. if I even have to
Apple OC
Apr 24, 06:15 PM
just what we need in the world ... a McPeace treaty:cool:
Ateazz
Oct 9, 01:57 PM
Hi guy's
A job has to be done so use the best software to do that.
In my case OS-X can't be beaten.
Look at "The Knowledgenavigator", not about speed but easy to use.
Make life easy, and Think different.
greetz
A job has to be done so use the best software to do that.
In my case OS-X can't be beaten.
Look at "The Knowledgenavigator", not about speed but easy to use.
Make life easy, and Think different.
greetz
Al Coholic
Apr 28, 11:16 AM
To all that insist your Apple kool-aide glass is "half full" I say…
…whatever floats your boat.
But… 3.5% mac market share which includes stupid iPads as computers is pretty dismal (laughable even). As an enterprise user of macs I find that pretty embarrassing and quite telling of where OSX really stands in the grand scheme of things.
After the MS Vista debacle, Steve was handed a CEO's dream to make macs a full contender in the PC arena (or at least a big thorn in the ass) but he chose a different path. A fruitful path to be sure but mac penetration alone today could easily read 15% along side all the iOS success.
But a pitiful 3.5%? Absolutely mind-boggling.
Any CEO who couldn't manage this with 35 billion in cash (at the time of Vista) should be grilled by the Board. Of course he blew it in '83 as well so why am I surprised?
Rolling out Leopard in '07 had the potential to at least be a tiny nail for the Vista/Windows coffin but Steve couldn't wield the hammer. Instead we get a pathetic followup to Leopard so dismal in features Apple admits it doesn't warrant a new name. They even apologize in advance by making it only a $29 upgrade. And now in 2011 and we'll get iLion. It's all about iOS folks. And Apple has shown it doesn't multitask very well.
My family has macs, iPhones, iPods, even an iPad. But with all these iDevices, we always gravitate to the macs to actually get something useful done. They are the mothership for all that we do… the real muscle, the "bread and butter" of our productivity-based lives. Ironically, if it weren't for Apple's adversary in the industry and their office suite... a few of us would still be forced to use Windows exclusively.
I'm sure Apple can do better with macs in the enterprise market but either they don't want to or don't know how. Either of which is troubling. To me, it's clear they will always be a general consumer company that's perfectly content with a user base who spends its time face-booking, twittering and playing with pissed off cartoon birds.
What Apple hasn't figured out though is that one day we grow up and need something else.
…whatever floats your boat.
But… 3.5% mac market share which includes stupid iPads as computers is pretty dismal (laughable even). As an enterprise user of macs I find that pretty embarrassing and quite telling of where OSX really stands in the grand scheme of things.
After the MS Vista debacle, Steve was handed a CEO's dream to make macs a full contender in the PC arena (or at least a big thorn in the ass) but he chose a different path. A fruitful path to be sure but mac penetration alone today could easily read 15% along side all the iOS success.
But a pitiful 3.5%? Absolutely mind-boggling.
Any CEO who couldn't manage this with 35 billion in cash (at the time of Vista) should be grilled by the Board. Of course he blew it in '83 as well so why am I surprised?
Rolling out Leopard in '07 had the potential to at least be a tiny nail for the Vista/Windows coffin but Steve couldn't wield the hammer. Instead we get a pathetic followup to Leopard so dismal in features Apple admits it doesn't warrant a new name. They even apologize in advance by making it only a $29 upgrade. And now in 2011 and we'll get iLion. It's all about iOS folks. And Apple has shown it doesn't multitask very well.
My family has macs, iPhones, iPods, even an iPad. But with all these iDevices, we always gravitate to the macs to actually get something useful done. They are the mothership for all that we do… the real muscle, the "bread and butter" of our productivity-based lives. Ironically, if it weren't for Apple's adversary in the industry and their office suite... a few of us would still be forced to use Windows exclusively.
I'm sure Apple can do better with macs in the enterprise market but either they don't want to or don't know how. Either of which is troubling. To me, it's clear they will always be a general consumer company that's perfectly content with a user base who spends its time face-booking, twittering and playing with pissed off cartoon birds.
What Apple hasn't figured out though is that one day we grow up and need something else.
toddybody
Apr 21, 08:19 AM
So you can steal artists property. Tell me how you can justify that? Nothing to do with android or ios but please tell me how you can justify stealing. Its the same as going into a shop and taking something. Sure nothing will happen immediately but I guarantee you will pay for it.
Sorry that's like saying I only steal from big manufactures like Heinz or Kellogs.
YOU ARE STILL A THIEF.
It's nice to know that there's at least one perfect person out there:p
Sorry that's like saying I only steal from big manufactures like Heinz or Kellogs.
YOU ARE STILL A THIEF.
It's nice to know that there's at least one perfect person out there:p
yg17
Mar 11, 08:53 AM
+1
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
Yes, twat is used over here quite a bit. Wank, not so much though.
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
Yes, twat is used over here quite a bit. Wank, not so much though.
tdar
Sep 12, 04:04 PM
It looks like iTV will be Apple's way of doing what Microsoft's pika extenders do for Windows Media Center. I think this is smart.....hate to break it to some of you but most people do not want a computer in the LR. A quiet CE device that is networked to a computer you already have..... thats as far as we are going to be able to push the mainstream just now.
theBB
Sep 12, 04:52 PM
I don't want to watch movies on my computer, so this sounds like a great product. I assume I can hook a USB drive with movies or music and download iTunes products directly to that same drive without a need for a computer. If I hook iTV to ethernet, maybe that drive can even become a file server of some sort. I can justify the cost of iTV if I can use it as a music streaming device, print server and file server. Let's see how many of these features will actually be there. :)
However, the price point for movies is wrong for me. I started using Netflix instead of going to Blockbuster, because of price and wider selection. Apple's offer is more than double the price for a movie, even without the cost of iTV unless I watch them twice or more. Apple's library is bound to be smaller for a long time to come as well. I guess instant gratification is the only saving grace. Well, considering I've never bought a TV show or music video, maybe I am not in the target audience anyways.
However, the price point for movies is wrong for me. I started using Netflix instead of going to Blockbuster, because of price and wider selection. Apple's offer is more than double the price for a movie, even without the cost of iTV unless I watch them twice or more. Apple's library is bound to be smaller for a long time to come as well. I guess instant gratification is the only saving grace. Well, considering I've never bought a TV show or music video, maybe I am not in the target audience anyways.
iphones4evry1
May 6, 01:32 AM
I have definitely noticed an increase over the past few months. I used to experience a dropped call about once every two months, and now it's about twice per week.
AT&T really needs to work on this problem. It seems to be getting worse.
AT&T really needs to work on this problem. It seems to be getting worse.
capvideo
Mar 20, 01:32 PM
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
mjstew33
Jul 12, 01:23 AM
Or maybe instead of a Mac pro mini, it might be a Mac mini Extreme? :cool:
matticus008
Mar 20, 08:15 PM
I'm a little late to this party, but FWIW I don't see much of a difference between this and buying a CD (apart from its tangible nature). CDs are data discs without rights management, after all. It thus similarly boils down to the consumer's conscience.
[...]
Without going into the legal aspects of it, on the whole I cannot fathom any kind of moral problems with this. You're paying for the product -- and the ITMS pays labels a whole lot more than the other options, whether Russian or distributed.
From an alternate point of view, though, nobody in the 'scene' would consider a 128kbit AAC worthwhile downloading anyway..!
It's more than a copyright/fair use issue. Let's step back from that for a moment and consider this. It is different from buying a CD and ripping it to your hard drive. You created an iTunes account under which you explicitly agreed to abide by the terms of said account. Ignoring the issue of whether the copyright laws are fair and whether breaking the law is morally justified, here's the thing. 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? If you didn't accept the terms presented, then there is no reason you should have agreed to them. It nullifies your power to complain. You said, "I don't think this business model is right" in your head, but clicked "I agree to these terms and conditions" anyway. Then you decide that the terms are inconvenient for you. Now you are breaking those terms, which in addition to being illegal on two fronts (copyright law and a legal TOS contract), is breaking your word. There's no way to construe that as morally sound.
To your final point, I agree that the quality of music sold is inferior, and most who would agree don't use the iTMS anyway. I use it for the incidental track that I like and come across randomly from various artists or that sounds good in the preview. My actual collection of albums demands a higher quality, and I hope iTunes offers 320kbps or lossless in the future for the same price. Then they'd make a lot more money from me, but I know that I'm not necessarily the target demographic. It certainly won't happen if piracy keeps its current rates, though.
[...]
Without going into the legal aspects of it, on the whole I cannot fathom any kind of moral problems with this. You're paying for the product -- and the ITMS pays labels a whole lot more than the other options, whether Russian or distributed.
From an alternate point of view, though, nobody in the 'scene' would consider a 128kbit AAC worthwhile downloading anyway..!
It's more than a copyright/fair use issue. Let's step back from that for a moment and consider this. It is different from buying a CD and ripping it to your hard drive. You created an iTunes account under which you explicitly agreed to abide by the terms of said account. Ignoring the issue of whether the copyright laws are fair and whether breaking the law is morally justified, here's the thing. 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? If you didn't accept the terms presented, then there is no reason you should have agreed to them. It nullifies your power to complain. You said, "I don't think this business model is right" in your head, but clicked "I agree to these terms and conditions" anyway. Then you decide that the terms are inconvenient for you. Now you are breaking those terms, which in addition to being illegal on two fronts (copyright law and a legal TOS contract), is breaking your word. There's no way to construe that as morally sound.
To your final point, I agree that the quality of music sold is inferior, and most who would agree don't use the iTMS anyway. I use it for the incidental track that I like and come across randomly from various artists or that sounds good in the preview. My actual collection of albums demands a higher quality, and I hope iTunes offers 320kbps or lossless in the future for the same price. Then they'd make a lot more money from me, but I know that I'm not necessarily the target demographic. It certainly won't happen if piracy keeps its current rates, though.
_760x480.jpg "Windows 7 Pro Wallpapers")
mac jones
Mar 12, 04:49 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Common sense would tell you the reactor itself didn't explode some 4 hours ago.
Don't you think if that had been the case the headlines would be everywhere? Considering it would trigger large government response and evacuations, it wouldn't exactly be easy to hide, and given how the media jumps at any bone any source throws them just to be first rather than accurate should show that it wasn't the reactor itself because all they are reporting is an unknown explosion. These plants aren't exactly simple, "Here's the gate, there's the reactor." They are very complex, large facilities with many many parts.
Something exploded at the complex facility, but it wasn't the reactor.
Not gonna bother replying to the rest at this point being I'm on a phone.
You sure about this? I hope your right.
Common sense would tell you the reactor itself didn't explode some 4 hours ago.
Don't you think if that had been the case the headlines would be everywhere? Considering it would trigger large government response and evacuations, it wouldn't exactly be easy to hide, and given how the media jumps at any bone any source throws them just to be first rather than accurate should show that it wasn't the reactor itself because all they are reporting is an unknown explosion. These plants aren't exactly simple, "Here's the gate, there's the reactor." They are very complex, large facilities with many many parts.
Something exploded at the complex facility, but it wasn't the reactor.
Not gonna bother replying to the rest at this point being I'm on a phone.
You sure about this? I hope your right.
deannnnn
May 5, 05:47 PM
i live in one of att's top 3 markets and havent dropped a call for a year. and both me and my dad (who also doesnt drop calls) are on the phone a lot.
for all the people saying they have a bad signal just in your house its your own fault. not att's.
also to this chart thing i bet most of the people on that chart are att haters just cause the iphone is att only. FYI dont get a phone if its service doesnt work near you. you have no right to complain if there are other carriers to choice.
PS. I don't doubt what you're saying, by the way. My phone works great when I'm in Miami. There are just very localized issues, and if you're in one of the problem areas, it can be very frustrating.
for all the people saying they have a bad signal just in your house its your own fault. not att's.
also to this chart thing i bet most of the people on that chart are att haters just cause the iphone is att only. FYI dont get a phone if its service doesnt work near you. you have no right to complain if there are other carriers to choice.
PS. I don't doubt what you're saying, by the way. My phone works great when I'm in Miami. There are just very localized issues, and if you're in one of the problem areas, it can be very frustrating.
Lennholm
May 2, 02:03 PM
That's the thing, though. It's not only old software that behaves this way. There are all kinds of modern software that require administrator access to run. One of the biggest ones I can think are games... typically those with some sort of anti-hack system.
MS has done nothing to discourage developers from writing their software to work this way and it's unfortunate.
They have done nothing to discourage it? Well, they introduced an annoying pop-up asking for confirmation that makes the developers customers frustrated. Any suggestion what other meaningful action they can take?
Also, I can't think of any application I have installed on my Windows PC that behaves like this.
When I first started using a Mac seriously, which was when Vista was out and got criticized for UAC, I was really surprised to discover that OS X has the exact same thing. In Windows 7 you not only have the option to switch it on and off, you can also customize the intrusiveness of it, I find it much more user friendly than in OS X.
I think a lot of people here need to actually try Windows 7 out instead of categorically dismiss it.
MS has done nothing to discourage developers from writing their software to work this way and it's unfortunate.
They have done nothing to discourage it? Well, they introduced an annoying pop-up asking for confirmation that makes the developers customers frustrated. Any suggestion what other meaningful action they can take?
Also, I can't think of any application I have installed on my Windows PC that behaves like this.
When I first started using a Mac seriously, which was when Vista was out and got criticized for UAC, I was really surprised to discover that OS X has the exact same thing. In Windows 7 you not only have the option to switch it on and off, you can also customize the intrusiveness of it, I find it much more user friendly than in OS X.
I think a lot of people here need to actually try Windows 7 out instead of categorically dismiss it.
hanpa
Oct 7, 10:39 AM
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
- 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
Mike Teezie
Sep 20, 10:26 AM
I'm buying this thing the day it drops.
Being able to stream iPhoto slideshows wirelessly to a big TV for clients is going to be wonderful.
Being able to stream iPhoto slideshows wirelessly to a big TV for clients is going to be wonderful.
deadkennedy
Apr 9, 09:25 AM
Let the games begin!
beaster
Sep 12, 05:41 PM
Nail on the head, imo.
There's no reason they would've put component outs on it if it won't (eventually) do HD.
I don't doubt the device will be capable of outputting HD resolution. But they still have 2 big problems to solve before they have me as a customer - bandwidth of the wireless network and content. Maybe they can solve (have solved?) the wireless bandwidth problem with a new wireless protocol or some really slick new compression technology - I sure hope so. But then they need HD content. Maybe that'll be a Blu-ray drive in the Mac. But HD downloads for feature-length movies? That's a lot of bits to move and store somewhere - will fill up a typical hard drive in no time. So you need a way to archive those movies - writeable Blu-ray maybe, or more hard drive space. My point is that there's still some kinks to work out to deliver HD content through this device to a TV. Until those problems are solved, I'll pass.
-Sean
There's no reason they would've put component outs on it if it won't (eventually) do HD.
I don't doubt the device will be capable of outputting HD resolution. But they still have 2 big problems to solve before they have me as a customer - bandwidth of the wireless network and content. Maybe they can solve (have solved?) the wireless bandwidth problem with a new wireless protocol or some really slick new compression technology - I sure hope so. But then they need HD content. Maybe that'll be a Blu-ray drive in the Mac. But HD downloads for feature-length movies? That's a lot of bits to move and store somewhere - will fill up a typical hard drive in no time. So you need a way to archive those movies - writeable Blu-ray maybe, or more hard drive space. My point is that there's still some kinks to work out to deliver HD content through this device to a TV. Until those problems are solved, I'll pass.
-Sean
bluap84
Mar 11, 09:24 AM
I thought it was appropriate for this line. It's not in my main repertoire but I thought it worked.
LOL i think it fitted the post just perfectly
back to OP theres a huge fire raging in Kesennumma...this quake is eating japan for breakfast, lunch and dinner...but i have seen some videos on youtube and im amazed that the japan population are just trying to get on with their normal days. Take this one for example: clicky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AobhPsc4Xfc)
LOL i think it fitted the post just perfectly
back to OP theres a huge fire raging in Kesennumma...this quake is eating japan for breakfast, lunch and dinner...but i have seen some videos on youtube and im amazed that the japan population are just trying to get on with their normal days. Take this one for example: clicky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AobhPsc4Xfc)