skunk
Apr 24, 10:50 AM
I'm just entertaining the notion of agnosticism as a kind of nod to the great debt we owe Judaism and Christianity. If it wasn't for those two faiths which allowed for reformations (such a thing would be impossible under, say, Islam) then secular Western democracies would be vastly different.What do you mean by "allowed for"? Do you mean that they could have slaughtered more people in the wars of religion? As for Islam, we probably would not have had a Renaissance without Islam.
If Europe had succumbed to the advance of Islam, if Vienna had fallen in the 17th century things likely would be very different today. Europe would have produced as many Nobel Prize winners as the entire Islamic WorldWe would all be speaking German I expect.
If Europe had succumbed to the advance of Islam, if Vienna had fallen in the 17th century things likely would be very different today. Europe would have produced as many Nobel Prize winners as the entire Islamic WorldWe would all be speaking German I expect.
NathanMuir
Mar 25, 09:25 AM
Subtract the individuals affiliated with gangs and the mentally unstable and we're staring at a long list of homosexuals murdered by "mainstream" individuals, many of whom attended church on a regular basis and were in fact catholic. That their religious affiliations are not immediately telegraphed is not evidence of absence, but rather of the fact that 76% of the population self-identifies as Christian.
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
To stretch my own analogy, it also ignores that the men who put on white hoods and terrorized black people were not "mainstream" white people either, but they were nevertheless acting on the attitudes held by "mainstream" white people. They were radical, but saw themselves as the ones with the strength of will to enforce the true will of the "mainstream." It's all very well to believe that the darkies should keep their place, but somebody's got to do the work of keeping them there when they step out of line.
However, I will return to what I touched on before: the Catholic Church (and Christian churches generally in the United States) currently have no need for terrorist thugs. They have great political influence and have convinced a significant plurality (seemingly no longer a majority, I am gratified to point out) that they are entitled to subjugate others bloodlessly and anonymously through the democratic process.
At least this is so until the courts clearly state once and for all that this is incompatible with our law and our society. Incidentally, that's also when the thugs will really come out, and you watch how many of them claim to be doing the Lord's work.
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'.
If we constantly expand the topic, none of what was previously said is relevant.
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.
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
To stretch my own analogy, it also ignores that the men who put on white hoods and terrorized black people were not "mainstream" white people either, but they were nevertheless acting on the attitudes held by "mainstream" white people. They were radical, but saw themselves as the ones with the strength of will to enforce the true will of the "mainstream." It's all very well to believe that the darkies should keep their place, but somebody's got to do the work of keeping them there when they step out of line.
However, I will return to what I touched on before: the Catholic Church (and Christian churches generally in the United States) currently have no need for terrorist thugs. They have great political influence and have convinced a significant plurality (seemingly no longer a majority, I am gratified to point out) that they are entitled to subjugate others bloodlessly and anonymously through the democratic process.
At least this is so until the courts clearly state once and for all that this is incompatible with our law and our society. Incidentally, that's also when the thugs will really come out, and you watch how many of them claim to be doing the Lord's work.
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'.
If we constantly expand the topic, none of what was previously said is relevant.
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.
r0k
Apr 12, 01:47 PM
1) Is there any better mac software equivalent to the one i listed that i use daily?
2) Is the mac command line a full unix one, with same commands, etc? As i said i'm used to linux command line from managing my web servers, and if i can write shell scripts in mac, it could save me good time.
Thanks for this nice thread that was very informative about the main differences/issues i'll find when switching over to Mac.
If you felt confortable with Linux and its command line, Mac OS X should be no real change for you. Its command line interface is no different. If I remember right, Mac OS X's standard Shell is in bash, but you can change it to the many other popular shells that are used with Unix and linux and even install your own.
Once you are using the shell program in OS X, you will find the not much has changed UNIX wise but remember that OS X is based on BSD and not linux so I guess there are some small (very small) differences.
I agree completely. I went from Windows to Linux to OS X. Well not quite... I went from
Windows
to
Windows + Linux
to
Windows + Linux + OS X
to
OS X + Linux.*
(* with windows banished from the home network and only used on the stone knives and bearskins issued to (inflicted upon) me by my employer)
During this time I found Linux and OS X to be similar and I don't bother thinking about switching from bash to csh or sh. I'm happy with bash. If I want to run a shell script, it always begins with #!/bin/sh so all the sh dependent shell scripts I've gotten used to, written and rewritten over the years work just fine.
2) Is the mac command line a full unix one, with same commands, etc? As i said i'm used to linux command line from managing my web servers, and if i can write shell scripts in mac, it could save me good time.
Thanks for this nice thread that was very informative about the main differences/issues i'll find when switching over to Mac.
If you felt confortable with Linux and its command line, Mac OS X should be no real change for you. Its command line interface is no different. If I remember right, Mac OS X's standard Shell is in bash, but you can change it to the many other popular shells that are used with Unix and linux and even install your own.
Once you are using the shell program in OS X, you will find the not much has changed UNIX wise but remember that OS X is based on BSD and not linux so I guess there are some small (very small) differences.
I agree completely. I went from Windows to Linux to OS X. Well not quite... I went from
Windows
to
Windows + Linux
to
Windows + Linux + OS X
to
OS X + Linux.*
(* with windows banished from the home network and only used on the stone knives and bearskins issued to (inflicted upon) me by my employer)
During this time I found Linux and OS X to be similar and I don't bother thinking about switching from bash to csh or sh. I'm happy with bash. If I want to run a shell script, it always begins with #!/bin/sh so all the sh dependent shell scripts I've gotten used to, written and rewritten over the years work just fine.
bpaluzzi
Apr 28, 09:00 AM
Best thing I could find
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Gadgets/Report/Desktop-and-Laptop-Computers.aspx
Kudos for looking for something (seriously) -- I'd argue that it's a bit limited in scope, though:
-Limited to America
-Limited to adults
-Calculating by household, with strictly boolean "yes or no" (not counting multiples)
For example, in my house, we have 4 laptops and 1 desktop machine, but for this survey, it would only be counted as "yes" for both. Actually, it wouldn't be counted at all, since we're in England ;-)
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Gadgets/Report/Desktop-and-Laptop-Computers.aspx
Kudos for looking for something (seriously) -- I'd argue that it's a bit limited in scope, though:
-Limited to America
-Limited to adults
-Calculating by household, with strictly boolean "yes or no" (not counting multiples)
For example, in my house, we have 4 laptops and 1 desktop machine, but for this survey, it would only be counted as "yes" for both. Actually, it wouldn't be counted at all, since we're in England ;-)
Stampyhead
Aug 29, 12:42 PM
When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
Funny, I thought all people had "the right" to believe anything they liked. When did you gain the right to be so imperious and condescending towards others just because their opinion doesn't agree with their own?
Anyway, I'm sure Apple and a whole load of other companies could do better in regards to environmental issues, but it always seemed to me that Apple was doing a pretty good job. I remember the iPod recycling program in their stores where you could bring in your old iPod and get 10% off a new one. I have also noticed that lately Apple has greatly reduced the amount of packaging on their products. Of course they still need to use styrofoam to keep the computers for getting damaged when they are shipped, but in some cases their packaging is almost half the size it used to be.
So although I'm sure they could do better, I think credit should be given where it is due.
Funny, I thought all people had "the right" to believe anything they liked. When did you gain the right to be so imperious and condescending towards others just because their opinion doesn't agree with their own?
Anyway, I'm sure Apple and a whole load of other companies could do better in regards to environmental issues, but it always seemed to me that Apple was doing a pretty good job. I remember the iPod recycling program in their stores where you could bring in your old iPod and get 10% off a new one. I have also noticed that lately Apple has greatly reduced the amount of packaging on their products. Of course they still need to use styrofoam to keep the computers for getting damaged when they are shipped, but in some cases their packaging is almost half the size it used to be.
So although I'm sure they could do better, I think credit should be given where it is due.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 10:15 AM
Or, perhaps it's that "fat kids" have not been discriminated against, been denied basic human rights, and been subjected to the worst types of inhuman hatred and violence, simply for being who they are.
That's not to say that bullying isn't an issue, per se. It is; full stop.
But to equate the bullying that "fat kids" experience (which, again, is real) to the utter fear for ones life that goes through the minds of every LGBT kid is to miss the point entirely.
Some groups actually do deserve to be treated differently than others.
Absolutely ridiculous. Fat kids DO commit suicide, by the way. A lot of kids do. But these days it doesn't get in the news because it isn't sexy.
That's not to say that bullying isn't an issue, per se. It is; full stop.
But to equate the bullying that "fat kids" experience (which, again, is real) to the utter fear for ones life that goes through the minds of every LGBT kid is to miss the point entirely.
Some groups actually do deserve to be treated differently than others.
Absolutely ridiculous. Fat kids DO commit suicide, by the way. A lot of kids do. But these days it doesn't get in the news because it isn't sexy.
Azathoth
May 2, 01:23 PM
Huge difference in my experience. The Windows UAC will pop up for seemingly mundane things like opening some files or opening applications for the first time, where as the OS X popup only happens during install of an app - in OS X, there is an actual logical reason apparent to the user. It is still up to the user to ensure the software they are installing is from a trusted source, but the reason for the password is readily apparent.
Right. Not.
In OS X is also pops up when doing things like opening files (html documents), DMG images etc. Of course this is correct behaviour, but OS X and Win7 are *fairly* similar in terms of user prompts.
Right. Not.
In OS X is also pops up when doing things like opening files (html documents), DMG images etc. Of course this is correct behaviour, but OS X and Win7 are *fairly* similar in terms of user prompts.
pdjudd
Oct 7, 04:57 PM
Have you actually READ the link you posted?
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
~Shard~
Sep 12, 03:45 PM
The iTV sounds great, however if I buy one I?m going to want to be able to utilize it to its fullest extent. And right now, living outside of the US, without access to TV shows on iTunes, let alone the new movies, it just doesn?t make sense for me to buy one. Hopefully things will change next year by the time it is released, but I have my doubts. As a result, there are going to have to be some other amazing features incorporated into this box to convince me to buy it, otherwise I?m not shelling out good money for a STB which Apple has essentially crippled for me. :cool:
KPOM
Mar 11, 08:55 PM
Tonga (thousands of miles away) was just hit by a magnitude 6.1 earthquake. Eerie coincidence. And there was just another magnitude 6.8 aftershock in Japan. :(
Open your wallets for this one. Unlike Haiti, the Japanese government won't waste the money, and it will do some good.
Open your wallets for this one. Unlike Haiti, the Japanese government won't waste the money, and it will do some good.
NathanMuir
Mar 24, 07:34 PM
As cool as that poster might be, I doubt that he has the political or monetary muscle that the Catholic Church does.
That doesn't take away from how utterly hypocritical that train of thought is.
welcome to las vegas sign clip
welcome to las vegas sign clip
Welcome To Fabulous Las Vegas
welcome to las vegas sign clip
pneumonia, Welcome
Las Vegas sign with space for
vegas sign photos
Las Vegas Nevada Sign
That doesn't take away from how utterly hypocritical that train of thought is.
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:21 PM
All things being equal, they prevent HIV versus not using them. But the promotion of a sexually promiscuous lifestyle increases the risk overall. That's what that argument is about, not that hard to get, really.
That's NOT what the argument is about. Your church LIED to people about the efficacy of condoms - people for whom the only source of that information was the Catholic church.
And they lied about it to married couples, too.
Oh, and just in case we're not clear on this: abstinence-only education doesn't work.
That's NOT what the argument is about. Your church LIED to people about the efficacy of condoms - people for whom the only source of that information was the Catholic church.
And they lied about it to married couples, too.
Oh, and just in case we're not clear on this: abstinence-only education doesn't work.
aristobrat
Mar 18, 09:34 AM
No matter what fine print they include in the contract, they cannot sell an unlimited data plan, and then limit it, in any way.
Even if your lawyer is somehow able to pull a Harry's Law and convince a court to rule that way, the end result is guaranteed to be that no US wireless carrier will ever offer an unlimited smartphone data plan again.
Big win.
Even if your lawyer is somehow able to pull a Harry's Law and convince a court to rule that way, the end result is guaranteed to be that no US wireless carrier will ever offer an unlimited smartphone data plan again.
Big win.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 13, 03:40 PM
We don't need nuclear, or coal or oil for that matter.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
That would destroy the local ecology (yes, there IS ecology there) as well as a number of historical and archaeological sites, and obliterate native-owned lands that provide subsistence in the form of pine nuts and springs among other things. There is nowhere in the US were a 100x100mi solar array would be acceptable.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
That would destroy the local ecology (yes, there IS ecology there) as well as a number of historical and archaeological sites, and obliterate native-owned lands that provide subsistence in the form of pine nuts and springs among other things. There is nowhere in the US were a 100x100mi solar array would be acceptable.
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 11:39 PM
Many atheists deny that God exists. Maybe they're right, but their denial implies that theism is either true or else false. If those atheists say that theism is nonsense, what do they mean by "nonsense?" If they mean that theism is neither true nor false, then they imply their denial is neither true nor false, since theism is the belief that at least one God exists, and "There is no God" is the denial of theism. By the law of the excluded middle, every proposition is either true or false, but not both.
I don't think many atheists actually feel that a god absolutely does not exist. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god but most atheists, I believe, are agnostic in the actual existence. While lacking in a belief about a god, most would keep an open mind on the issue or would say it's impossible to know either way.
I don't think many atheists actually feel that a god absolutely does not exist. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god but most atheists, I believe, are agnostic in the actual existence. While lacking in a belief about a god, most would keep an open mind on the issue or would say it's impossible to know either way.
Big-TDI-Guy
Mar 12, 09:54 PM
:(
0352: The news coming from Japan remains bleak. Government spokesman Yukio Edano: "We do believe that there is a possibility that meltdown has occurred - it is inside the reactor, we can't see. However, we are acting, assuming that a meltdown has occurred and with reactor number 3 we are also assuming the possibility of a meltdown as we carry out measures."
0352: The news coming from Japan remains bleak. Government spokesman Yukio Edano: "We do believe that there is a possibility that meltdown has occurred - it is inside the reactor, we can't see. However, we are acting, assuming that a meltdown has occurred and with reactor number 3 we are also assuming the possibility of a meltdown as we carry out measures."
CaryMacGuy
Mar 18, 09:11 AM
I will do what I want when I want on a device that I purchased. If AT&T doesn't like it, I can tell them where to go. They can cancel me and I will just take my business to Verizon. I am sure they don't want that.
CTYankee
Oct 25, 10:40 PM
Each process is it's own thread. And most processes have multiple threads. Unless you only always have one program open at a time, more cores always can help speed up your system.
Open and doing something. Safari, Mail, iTunes, and working in photoshop probably won't benefit much from quad cores. Batching in PS, Aperture and doing a render in FCP would.
I am on the brink of buying something. What, time will tell. If the quad core does make a marked difference when running PS and at most one background process I'll consider it. Otherwise its a Dual core 2.66 for me.
Open and doing something. Safari, Mail, iTunes, and working in photoshop probably won't benefit much from quad cores. Batching in PS, Aperture and doing a render in FCP would.
I am on the brink of buying something. What, time will tell. If the quad core does make a marked difference when running PS and at most one background process I'll consider it. Otherwise its a Dual core 2.66 for me.
BruiserBear
Apr 15, 09:23 AM
and 8 morons hit the "negative" button. That's why videos like this are necessary. Because there are a lot of stupid people out there who don't understand the world as it is.
peharri
Sep 23, 10:25 AM
Perhaps we've just been exposed to different sources of info. I viewed the sept 12 presentation in its entirety, and have read virtually all the reports and comments on macrumors, appleinsider, think secret, engadget, the wall street journal, and maccentral, among others. It was disney chief bob iger who was quoted saying iTV had a hard drive; that was generally interpreted (except by maccentral, which took the statement literally) to mean it had some sort of storage, be it flash or a small HD, and that it would be for buffering/caching to allow streaming of huge files at relatively slow (for the purpose) wireless speeds.
I've read absolutely everything I can too and I have to disagree with you still.
It makes absolutely no sense for Bob Iger to have been told there's "some sort of storage" if this isn't storage in any conventional sense. Storage to a layman means somewhere where you store things, not something transitory used by the machine in a way you can't fathom. So, we have two factors here:
First - Bob's been talking about a hard disk. That absolutely doesn't point at a cache, it's too expensive to be a cache.
Second - Even if Bob got the technology wrong, he's been told the machine has "storage". That's not a term you generally use to mean "transitory storage for temporary objects".
The suggestion Bob's talking about a cache is being made, in my view, because people know it'll need some sort of caching to overcome 802.11/etc temporary bandwidth issues (Hmm. Kind of. You guys do know we're talking about way less bandwidth requirements than a DVD right - and that a DVD-formatted MPEG2 will transmit realtime on an 802.11g link? What's more, for 99% of Internet users, their DSL connection has less bandwidth than their wireless link, even if they're on the other side of the house with someone else's WAN in range and on the same channel. Yes, 802.11 suffers drop-outs, but we're talking about needing seconds worth of video effected, not hours) As such, you're trying to find evidence that it'll deal with caching.
YOU DON'T NEED TO. A few megabytes of RAM is enough to ensure smooth playback will happen. This is a non-problem. Everyone who's going this route is putting way too much thought into designing a solution to something that isn't hard to solve.
Nonetheless, because it's an "issue", everything is being interpreted in that light. If there's "storage", it must be because of caching! Well, in my opinion, if there's storage, it's almost certainly to do with storage. You don't need it for caching.
I'm trying to imagine a conversation with Bob Iger where the issue of flash or hard disk space for caching content to avoid 802.11 issues would come up, and where the word "storage" would be used purely in that context. It's hard. I don't see them talking about caches to Iger. It makes no sense. They might just as well talk about DCT transforms or the Quicktime API.
I'm perfectly willing to be wrong. But i don't think i am. Let's continue reading the reports and revisit this subject here in a day or two.
Sure. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong too. I'm certainly less sure of it than I am of the iPhone rumours being bunk.
Regardless of the truth, I have to say the iTV makes little sense unless, regardless of whether it contains a hard disk or not, it can stream content directly from the iTS. Without the possibility of being used as a computer-less media hub, it becomes an overly expensive and complicated solution for what could more easily be done by making a bolt-on similar to that awful TubePort concept.
I'm 99% sure the machine is intended as an independent hub that can use iTunes libraries on the same network but can also go to the iTS directly and view content straight from there (and possibly other sources, such as Google Video.) I can see why Apple would make that. I can see why it would take a $300 machine to do that and make it practical. I see the importance of the iTS and the potential dangers to it as the cellphone displaces the iPod, and Apple's need to shore it up. I can see studio executives "not getting it" with online movies if those movies can only be seen on laptops, PCs, and iPods.
If Apple does force the thing to need a computer, I think they need to come out with an 'iTunes server' box that can fufill the same role, and it has to be cheap.
I've read absolutely everything I can too and I have to disagree with you still.
It makes absolutely no sense for Bob Iger to have been told there's "some sort of storage" if this isn't storage in any conventional sense. Storage to a layman means somewhere where you store things, not something transitory used by the machine in a way you can't fathom. So, we have two factors here:
First - Bob's been talking about a hard disk. That absolutely doesn't point at a cache, it's too expensive to be a cache.
Second - Even if Bob got the technology wrong, he's been told the machine has "storage". That's not a term you generally use to mean "transitory storage for temporary objects".
The suggestion Bob's talking about a cache is being made, in my view, because people know it'll need some sort of caching to overcome 802.11/etc temporary bandwidth issues (Hmm. Kind of. You guys do know we're talking about way less bandwidth requirements than a DVD right - and that a DVD-formatted MPEG2 will transmit realtime on an 802.11g link? What's more, for 99% of Internet users, their DSL connection has less bandwidth than their wireless link, even if they're on the other side of the house with someone else's WAN in range and on the same channel. Yes, 802.11 suffers drop-outs, but we're talking about needing seconds worth of video effected, not hours) As such, you're trying to find evidence that it'll deal with caching.
YOU DON'T NEED TO. A few megabytes of RAM is enough to ensure smooth playback will happen. This is a non-problem. Everyone who's going this route is putting way too much thought into designing a solution to something that isn't hard to solve.
Nonetheless, because it's an "issue", everything is being interpreted in that light. If there's "storage", it must be because of caching! Well, in my opinion, if there's storage, it's almost certainly to do with storage. You don't need it for caching.
I'm trying to imagine a conversation with Bob Iger where the issue of flash or hard disk space for caching content to avoid 802.11 issues would come up, and where the word "storage" would be used purely in that context. It's hard. I don't see them talking about caches to Iger. It makes no sense. They might just as well talk about DCT transforms or the Quicktime API.
I'm perfectly willing to be wrong. But i don't think i am. Let's continue reading the reports and revisit this subject here in a day or two.
Sure. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong too. I'm certainly less sure of it than I am of the iPhone rumours being bunk.
Regardless of the truth, I have to say the iTV makes little sense unless, regardless of whether it contains a hard disk or not, it can stream content directly from the iTS. Without the possibility of being used as a computer-less media hub, it becomes an overly expensive and complicated solution for what could more easily be done by making a bolt-on similar to that awful TubePort concept.
I'm 99% sure the machine is intended as an independent hub that can use iTunes libraries on the same network but can also go to the iTS directly and view content straight from there (and possibly other sources, such as Google Video.) I can see why Apple would make that. I can see why it would take a $300 machine to do that and make it practical. I see the importance of the iTS and the potential dangers to it as the cellphone displaces the iPod, and Apple's need to shore it up. I can see studio executives "not getting it" with online movies if those movies can only be seen on laptops, PCs, and iPods.
If Apple does force the thing to need a computer, I think they need to come out with an 'iTunes server' box that can fufill the same role, and it has to be cheap.
Wetapples
Jun 12, 11:29 PM
I find this topic to be really interesting I have called the AT&T service department enough times they said there is nothing they can do to fix the problem and recomended that I look into porting my number and changing providers!! AT&T has me cornered though because the next best option is verizon and they do not carry the iPhone!!! Please Steve Jobs divorce at&t they are doing very little to promote your product image! I know there are thousands like me who would drop AT&T in a heart beat if another company aquired the iPhone!!
Eraserhead
Mar 28, 02:11 AM
I accept same-sex-attracted people as they are. But I won't accept some things that many of them do.
What's pretty funny is that I'm sure Leonardo da Vinci did plenty of work for the pope and he was gay, and Michelangelo painted the roof of the Sistine Chapel, and he was almost certainly gay as well given what his art involves.
And clearly the popes at the time didn't give a damn about their homosexuality - I fail to see how in the intervening 500 years its suddenly become an issue.
What's pretty funny is that I'm sure Leonardo da Vinci did plenty of work for the pope and he was gay, and Michelangelo painted the roof of the Sistine Chapel, and he was almost certainly gay as well given what his art involves.
And clearly the popes at the time didn't give a damn about their homosexuality - I fail to see how in the intervening 500 years its suddenly become an issue.
KnightWRX
Apr 9, 06:32 AM
This comes at the same time that the Guardian reports that a Admob survey shows interesting results as far as tablet use :
Research finds that 84% of tablet owners are playing games (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/appsblog/2011/apr/08/tablets-mainly-for-games-survey)
Was Steve wrong about tablets afterall ? They aren't the cars while the laptops/desktops are the trucks, tablets are the ATVs and motorcycle and laptops/desktops remain entrenched as the daily commuters...
Is the tablet replacing the traditional portable gaming system like the Nintendo DS, PSP more than it is the PC ?
Research finds that 84% of tablet owners are playing games (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/appsblog/2011/apr/08/tablets-mainly-for-games-survey)
Was Steve wrong about tablets afterall ? They aren't the cars while the laptops/desktops are the trucks, tablets are the ATVs and motorcycle and laptops/desktops remain entrenched as the daily commuters...
Is the tablet replacing the traditional portable gaming system like the Nintendo DS, PSP more than it is the PC ?
babyj
Sep 21, 03:17 AM
There is going to be a lot of changes to how we watch and pay for tv shows over the next few years, its still early days at the moment. The main change will be watching everything on demand rather than at the time it is broadcast.
The bottom line is that the tv companies (producers and broadcasters) have to make money from the shows. That money can come from advertising, cable / satellite subscriptions, paying for downloads or for on demand type services.
Everyone is treading very carefully at present as they don't want to upset the balance. For example, brands won't pay for advertising if no one is watching the ads as viewers are all buying downloads and until the downloads are paying the bills the tv companies don't want to do anything too drastic.
Here in the UK the next big thing is likely to be the BBC going all out with downloads and streaming of their content. Which in theory won't cost anyone in the UK much (maybe just paying for the traffic) as we already pay through the tv license.
If Apple want to get a good market share in the UK they need to forget about tv shows and do a deal for content from the BBC and the Premiership, as the exclusive live rights to the latter is what made Sky so big and popular.
The bottom line is that the tv companies (producers and broadcasters) have to make money from the shows. That money can come from advertising, cable / satellite subscriptions, paying for downloads or for on demand type services.
Everyone is treading very carefully at present as they don't want to upset the balance. For example, brands won't pay for advertising if no one is watching the ads as viewers are all buying downloads and until the downloads are paying the bills the tv companies don't want to do anything too drastic.
Here in the UK the next big thing is likely to be the BBC going all out with downloads and streaming of their content. Which in theory won't cost anyone in the UK much (maybe just paying for the traffic) as we already pay through the tv license.
If Apple want to get a good market share in the UK they need to forget about tv shows and do a deal for content from the BBC and the Premiership, as the exclusive live rights to the latter is what made Sky so big and popular.
No comments:
Post a Comment