matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
gnasher729
Apr 9, 10:58 AM
Poaching suggests illegal, secret, stealing or other misadventure that is underhanded and sneaky.
From what I've read so far, and I'd be glad for someone to show me what I've missed, Apple had the job positions already advertised and for all we know these individuals, realizing their companies were sliding, applied to - and were received by - apple which replied with open arms. Does anyone have evidence to the contrary? Would that be poaching? Is this forum, like some others, doing headline greed?
There was a bit of trouble a while ago because some major companies (I think Apple, Google, and someone else) apparently had a "no poaching" agreement, agreeing that they wouldn't make job offers to people employed by the other company. That is considered bad, because it means someone say employed by Google for $100,000 a year can't get a job offer from Apple for $110,000 a year, so salaries are kept down. While companies may not like poaching, employees like it.
And what makes you say "these individuals, realizing their companies were sliding..." ? The company I work for is doing very well, but if someone else offered me a much higher salary, or better career opportunities, or much better working conditions, or a much more interesting job, why wouldn't I consider that?
From what I've read so far, and I'd be glad for someone to show me what I've missed, Apple had the job positions already advertised and for all we know these individuals, realizing their companies were sliding, applied to - and were received by - apple which replied with open arms. Does anyone have evidence to the contrary? Would that be poaching? Is this forum, like some others, doing headline greed?
There was a bit of trouble a while ago because some major companies (I think Apple, Google, and someone else) apparently had a "no poaching" agreement, agreeing that they wouldn't make job offers to people employed by the other company. That is considered bad, because it means someone say employed by Google for $100,000 a year can't get a job offer from Apple for $110,000 a year, so salaries are kept down. While companies may not like poaching, employees like it.
And what makes you say "these individuals, realizing their companies were sliding..." ? The company I work for is doing very well, but if someone else offered me a much higher salary, or better career opportunities, or much better working conditions, or a much more interesting job, why wouldn't I consider that?
sawah
Mar 18, 08:30 AM
Poor thing... he doesn't realize napster and limewire are history. Also, once the data hits my device, it's mine to do with as I please. Thank you very much.
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
It is yours to do as you please with on YOUR PHONE! Not your computer, or your friends computer. This is why new customers can't get unlimited data anymore.
When you don't follow the rules, and you get caught, don't get mad.
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
It is yours to do as you please with on YOUR PHONE! Not your computer, or your friends computer. This is why new customers can't get unlimited data anymore.
When you don't follow the rules, and you get caught, don't get mad.
ChrisA
Sep 12, 06:40 PM
So what is this thing, anyway? .... I've seen no indication if it does or does not have a hard drive.
Who cares if it has a hard drive if you hve at least one other computer on your network you can "share" a folder and then the iTV will act as if it does have a hard drive..
My guess.. iTV is a mini with no optical drive, a very small hard drive (to store the software and hold a small local cache) and an Intel video chip that can do HD formats
I can envision a third party device that has the same form factor as the iTV so it could stack on or under it. This gadget would have a cable TV tunner and digitizer and connect to the iTV via USB. This way cable TV shows could be saved automatically to your iTunes library where they would show up in the Front Row menu. I doubt Apple would offer this but I'll bet someoe else will.
Is the Ethernet port 100BaseT or Gigabit? How many iTVs can you have on one network. Can a Mac Pro stream 2, 10 or 20 video streams. I can see this used in an educational setting. A school could keep large numbers of recored lectures on a server. Students could water on big screens, thier PC/Mac or on an iPod. There are uses for this other than to feed the typical brain dead TV zombie
Who cares if it has a hard drive if you hve at least one other computer on your network you can "share" a folder and then the iTV will act as if it does have a hard drive..
My guess.. iTV is a mini with no optical drive, a very small hard drive (to store the software and hold a small local cache) and an Intel video chip that can do HD formats
I can envision a third party device that has the same form factor as the iTV so it could stack on or under it. This gadget would have a cable TV tunner and digitizer and connect to the iTV via USB. This way cable TV shows could be saved automatically to your iTunes library where they would show up in the Front Row menu. I doubt Apple would offer this but I'll bet someoe else will.
Is the Ethernet port 100BaseT or Gigabit? How many iTVs can you have on one network. Can a Mac Pro stream 2, 10 or 20 video streams. I can see this used in an educational setting. A school could keep large numbers of recored lectures on a server. Students could water on big screens, thier PC/Mac or on an iPod. There are uses for this other than to feed the typical brain dead TV zombie
MacinDoc
Oct 26, 12:22 AM
Well, it would be easy enough for Apple to replace the dual 2.66 GHz Woodcrest option with a single Clovertown at the same clock speed, while also boosting speed a bit (like when it moved from dual processor G5s to dual core G5s) and reducing power consumption, heat production and fan noise a bit, and dropping the price at the same time. There's no direct equivalent of the 2.0 and 3.0 GHz dual Woodcrests, however, so replacing them could be a bit more complicated.
ductapesuprhero
Mar 20, 02:12 AM
I've used iTMS before I bought my iPod Shuffle (way cool!) to simply download music and burn to it CDs. Beats the inconvenience of running out to Walmart and buying the CD for even more money. And I get to search and preview. This is the best way to buy music WITH OR WITHOUT a portable music player.
Also, $0.34 is a nice profit per song * 300+ million songs and growing. Not bad business for just pushing bits! :cool:
Off Topic: Any with an iPod Shuffle think the plastic is reminiscent of Lego (R) plastic?
No one has mentioned the bigger picture... Apple sells music to sell iPods for the same reason they make iLife, Safari, and OSX - to sell computers. Sure, Apple has raked in $100milion in profits from iTunes, and as big as that number sounds, it pales in comparison to the rest of their numbers.
Its all about the halo effect.
Plus, what people don't see is that they are not buying music, or a file etc.; they are purchasing the right to play that file/music which carries with it certain terms and conditions. The DRM is there simply to enforce what you've already agreed to. If its so bad, why do you agree to it in the first place? To download the music? That's both illegal and unethical; it is not your music.
[EDIT: Typo]
Also, $0.34 is a nice profit per song * 300+ million songs and growing. Not bad business for just pushing bits! :cool:
Off Topic: Any with an iPod Shuffle think the plastic is reminiscent of Lego (R) plastic?
No one has mentioned the bigger picture... Apple sells music to sell iPods for the same reason they make iLife, Safari, and OSX - to sell computers. Sure, Apple has raked in $100milion in profits from iTunes, and as big as that number sounds, it pales in comparison to the rest of their numbers.
Its all about the halo effect.
Plus, what people don't see is that they are not buying music, or a file etc.; they are purchasing the right to play that file/music which carries with it certain terms and conditions. The DRM is there simply to enforce what you've already agreed to. If its so bad, why do you agree to it in the first place? To download the music? That's both illegal and unethical; it is not your music.
[EDIT: Typo]
technicolor
Sep 21, 05:52 AM
it won't have any dvr functionality... it'll just be frontrow on your tv, and nothing else. woopdee freaking doo
Basically.
I have no plans on purchasing this, unless its magically has DVR ability
Basically.
I have no plans on purchasing this, unless its magically has DVR ability
hvfsl
Oct 8, 05:34 PM
Linux runs programs faster than windows on intel hardware so Apple has a fast OS, just not fast hardware. Mac are the fastest in things like MP3 encoding, MPEG4/DIVX encoding and photoshop. But PCs are faster in games and 3D graphics. I have top of the range Macs and PCs at home and have done the tests. But the Macs speed is all thanks to AltiVec, if not a $1000 PC would be faster in PhotoShop than a top of the range Mac.
skellener
Sep 12, 07:24 PM
At $2 a pop I'd be out maybe $6 per month.
Most shows air once a week so that's 3-5 times a month. So even 1 show will cost you $6-$10. So sure, if you watch one televison show (say LOST) at 3-5 episodes a month your doing fine. I would imagine most people take in 5 shows (3-5 episodes a month) or more per month. That's $30-$50 already for only 5 televison shows a month. $50 gets me all the standard and HD channels on DirecTV. iTunes is still not at that quality/price point yet.
Most shows air once a week so that's 3-5 times a month. So even 1 show will cost you $6-$10. So sure, if you watch one televison show (say LOST) at 3-5 episodes a month your doing fine. I would imagine most people take in 5 shows (3-5 episodes a month) or more per month. That's $30-$50 already for only 5 televison shows a month. $50 gets me all the standard and HD channels on DirecTV. iTunes is still not at that quality/price point yet.
Liquorpuki
Mar 14, 06:37 PM
The problem with this is that I don't see any huge breakthroughs in battery technology on the horizon, and the most efficient 'battery" is still water behind a dam - or the energy contained in non-renewable sources.
If that's the case, then it's coal or nuclear or combined cycle NG. (http://www.greenbang.com/energy-storage-critical-to-future-grid_16067.html) Which means coal or nuclear because combined cycle NG is too expensive to run 24/7.
But I really hope battery tech will improve over the next couple decades. From a design standpoint there really no other practical alternative. We can't build dams or pumped hydro stations or compressed air shafts everywhere. This article (http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=849) shows where we're at right now, technology wise.
If that's the case, then it's coal or nuclear or combined cycle NG. (http://www.greenbang.com/energy-storage-critical-to-future-grid_16067.html) Which means coal or nuclear because combined cycle NG is too expensive to run 24/7.
But I really hope battery tech will improve over the next couple decades. From a design standpoint there really no other practical alternative. We can't build dams or pumped hydro stations or compressed air shafts everywhere. This article (http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=849) shows where we're at right now, technology wise.
R.Perez
Apr 15, 02:49 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWYqsaJk_U8
Well worth the watch. Im so glad they did this.
that made me tear up for sure. thanks for posting it. The Trevor project is a really great organization.
Well worth the watch. Im so glad they did this.
that made me tear up for sure. thanks for posting it. The Trevor project is a really great organization.
archipellago
May 2, 04:37 PM
I think the reality is in front of us. There's no need to google it.
sorry what was that....?
I coudn't hear you through all that sand, could you lift it up higher, say just above ground level..?
thanks..
sorry what was that....?
I coudn't hear you through all that sand, could you lift it up higher, say just above ground level..?
thanks..
MagnusVonMagnum
May 3, 06:28 PM
It has nothing to do with being a "fanboy". It has to do with facts.
100% bullcrap. I just waded through this god-awful thread and almost every single post that said anything positive about Windows in any way, shape or form (truth or nonsense alike) got zapped with negative votes. Anything that contradicted the idea that OSX is 100% safe and that there's no possibility of any kind of malware got zapped with negative votes. Any time anyone says anything against Apple or Steve Jobs or any feature that someone doesn't like about either OSX or hardware offerings from Apple (no matter how true), it gets zapped by the usual suspects. You don't need a flipping degree in rocket science to make that observation dude. But then you ARE one of the usual suspects, so I shouldn't be shocked.
Here's a great example of 100% BS from YOU. A claim was made about 100 million Mac users and growing. A guy replied with proof that the number of OSX users is currently 50 million. Here's your reply:
That's Mac OS X installed base, not the installed base of Macs, as I said. Mac OS X is not the only Mac OS out there. Reading comprehension is fun!
You are clearly implying that the 'other' 50 MILLION "Macs" out there are pre-OSX (i.e. OS9 or earlier). And don't tell me you meant "iOS" devices as they are not "Macs" and your reply specifically says Macs.
That is just a laughing crock of BS it's just unbelievable. For god's sake man, you are telling me that there are JUST AS MANY OS9 and earlier Mac users out there as current OSX users?????? REALLY?????????? WTF!? Man, why isn't Chrome offered for OS9 if there's so many OS9 users out there? Firefox and Google alike declined to even offer it for PPC users because their statistics showed only a tiny percentage of active users even show up at their sites using PPC (let alone OS9!) and yet you want me to believe HALF of all current Mac users are using something other than OSX. I can smell that BS from a thousand miles away dude. WTF should anyone believe anything you say ever when you post such obvious BS on here?
If that's not a prime example of fanboy DRIVEL and the total biased slant against everything that isn't Apple/Mac around here, I don't know WTF is. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
The report I read in 2009 stated "OSX" users went from 25 million in 2007 (including a lot of PPC users who have since dumped their machines because they are not terribly useful or have upgraded, which is 1:1, not an increase) to 75 million but the article specifically said it included iPhone and iPod Touch devices, which aren't Macs (iOS is derived from OSX, but it's not quite the same thing and they aren't called Macs). 50 million is a fair estimate, IMO for actual active Macs. It's certainly nowhere near 100 million without iOS devices.
In any case, SOME of us don't give a crap about Apple Vs. Microsoft. I don't like EITHER company. I use whatever computer and OS suits me. Right now I have more OSX computers than Windows/Linux, but I use all three. That could change in the future, particularly IF Apple at some point decides to make OSX closed like iOS. But the point is I hate fanatical BS around here. This is not the Mac Advocate Forums, but some days I'd never guess it. I come here for news and rumors and I wish useful discussion, but I see more arguments over STUPID BS than I'd care to see and it gets OLD.
100% bullcrap. I just waded through this god-awful thread and almost every single post that said anything positive about Windows in any way, shape or form (truth or nonsense alike) got zapped with negative votes. Anything that contradicted the idea that OSX is 100% safe and that there's no possibility of any kind of malware got zapped with negative votes. Any time anyone says anything against Apple or Steve Jobs or any feature that someone doesn't like about either OSX or hardware offerings from Apple (no matter how true), it gets zapped by the usual suspects. You don't need a flipping degree in rocket science to make that observation dude. But then you ARE one of the usual suspects, so I shouldn't be shocked.
Here's a great example of 100% BS from YOU. A claim was made about 100 million Mac users and growing. A guy replied with proof that the number of OSX users is currently 50 million. Here's your reply:
That's Mac OS X installed base, not the installed base of Macs, as I said. Mac OS X is not the only Mac OS out there. Reading comprehension is fun!
You are clearly implying that the 'other' 50 MILLION "Macs" out there are pre-OSX (i.e. OS9 or earlier). And don't tell me you meant "iOS" devices as they are not "Macs" and your reply specifically says Macs.
That is just a laughing crock of BS it's just unbelievable. For god's sake man, you are telling me that there are JUST AS MANY OS9 and earlier Mac users out there as current OSX users?????? REALLY?????????? WTF!? Man, why isn't Chrome offered for OS9 if there's so many OS9 users out there? Firefox and Google alike declined to even offer it for PPC users because their statistics showed only a tiny percentage of active users even show up at their sites using PPC (let alone OS9!) and yet you want me to believe HALF of all current Mac users are using something other than OSX. I can smell that BS from a thousand miles away dude. WTF should anyone believe anything you say ever when you post such obvious BS on here?
If that's not a prime example of fanboy DRIVEL and the total biased slant against everything that isn't Apple/Mac around here, I don't know WTF is. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
The report I read in 2009 stated "OSX" users went from 25 million in 2007 (including a lot of PPC users who have since dumped their machines because they are not terribly useful or have upgraded, which is 1:1, not an increase) to 75 million but the article specifically said it included iPhone and iPod Touch devices, which aren't Macs (iOS is derived from OSX, but it's not quite the same thing and they aren't called Macs). 50 million is a fair estimate, IMO for actual active Macs. It's certainly nowhere near 100 million without iOS devices.
In any case, SOME of us don't give a crap about Apple Vs. Microsoft. I don't like EITHER company. I use whatever computer and OS suits me. Right now I have more OSX computers than Windows/Linux, but I use all three. That could change in the future, particularly IF Apple at some point decides to make OSX closed like iOS. But the point is I hate fanatical BS around here. This is not the Mac Advocate Forums, but some days I'd never guess it. I come here for news and rumors and I wish useful discussion, but I see more arguments over STUPID BS than I'd care to see and it gets OLD.
itickings
Apr 15, 07:09 AM
I still miss the ability to easily control the computer with only a keyboard without reaching for the mouse/trackpad all the time.
Sure, there are many shortcuts, but no real equivalent to the underlined entries in menus, and the obvious keyboard navigation in dialogs. But then again, I'd been primed to that since Windows 3.0 through XP and other systems.
I'm sure some people will want to correct me now by pointing out the keyboard control possibility available in the accessibility settings, but that'll only end with uncontrollable laughter...
Sure, there are many shortcuts, but no real equivalent to the underlined entries in menus, and the obvious keyboard navigation in dialogs. But then again, I'd been primed to that since Windows 3.0 through XP and other systems.
I'm sure some people will want to correct me now by pointing out the keyboard control possibility available in the accessibility settings, but that'll only end with uncontrollable laughter...
Multimedia
Oct 20, 06:25 PM
My 24" came in earlier this week. Using it as my main monitor and the MBP screen is my tools monitor now. Very happy overall and the SD and CF ports are a bonus.
BI'm Speechless. All I can think of is "Wow!"
Makes 20" 1600 x 1200 look puny and the 24" 1920 x 1200 modest.
How do I look for dead pixels AppliedVisual? Yes I want two. :)
The 30" makes such a huge difference in managing windows of different applications simultaneously. I can see why you wanted 2 AV. Tell me, is there a significant improvement inthe design of your 3007 vs the 3005 model? I notice mine has no moving parts touch sensitive controls that are so stealth. I really love the black or dark brown matt finish way more than the shiny aluminum Apple finish. In the dark, this matt dark brown disappears so only the screens are floating there.
______________________
High Definition TV Was 23" on the 24" now 29" on the 30 - up 126%.
Interpolates up 133% wonderfully to 2560 Wide x 1440 High.
While the High Def programming looks great, it really makes the standard def programming look quite a bit worse than it does on the native res 24".
I envy you kids who won't have to live with analog and standard def digital TV very many more years. For old folks like me who have been anticipating and waiting for High-Def TV for many years - and I can assure you we are very few, it can't happen too soon 'cause we will be dead very soon after the transition is complete. :(
BI'm Speechless. All I can think of is "Wow!"
Makes 20" 1600 x 1200 look puny and the 24" 1920 x 1200 modest.
How do I look for dead pixels AppliedVisual? Yes I want two. :)
The 30" makes such a huge difference in managing windows of different applications simultaneously. I can see why you wanted 2 AV. Tell me, is there a significant improvement inthe design of your 3007 vs the 3005 model? I notice mine has no moving parts touch sensitive controls that are so stealth. I really love the black or dark brown matt finish way more than the shiny aluminum Apple finish. In the dark, this matt dark brown disappears so only the screens are floating there.
______________________
High Definition TV Was 23" on the 24" now 29" on the 30 - up 126%.
Interpolates up 133% wonderfully to 2560 Wide x 1440 High.
While the High Def programming looks great, it really makes the standard def programming look quite a bit worse than it does on the native res 24".
I envy you kids who won't have to live with analog and standard def digital TV very many more years. For old folks like me who have been anticipating and waiting for High-Def TV for many years - and I can assure you we are very few, it can't happen too soon 'cause we will be dead very soon after the transition is complete. :(
Warbrain
Oct 8, 07:55 AM
Android my not be recognizable to the average consumer but GOOGLE sure as hell is.
You average consumer has figured out that Android is made by Google. People trust Google and know they put out some great stuff. People know about google maps, google earth, google street view and Gmail shall I go on..
All great things. People know the Android phones are made by google. The customization is a huge selling point as you can add a lot of apps. Set up the interface to exactly how you like it. Something you can not nor ever will be able to be done on the iPhone. That limitation is really a bad point about the phone.
I think you're giving people too much credit. I can tell someone about Android and they don't have a clue about the OS or who makes it.
You average consumer has figured out that Android is made by Google. People trust Google and know they put out some great stuff. People know about google maps, google earth, google street view and Gmail shall I go on..
All great things. People know the Android phones are made by google. The customization is a huge selling point as you can add a lot of apps. Set up the interface to exactly how you like it. Something you can not nor ever will be able to be done on the iPhone. That limitation is really a bad point about the phone.
I think you're giving people too much credit. I can tell someone about Android and they don't have a clue about the OS or who makes it.
askthedust
Sep 20, 08:39 AM
...but in order for me to buy this box I want it to work without connecting to a computer. Just an easy (read Front Row interface) that would let me buy and watch or listen to my purchased content. Wireless would be perfect. plug this in hook it up to my tv and stereo and all my movies and music are on it. I can buy content and save it there. The only time I would want to connect to a computer would be to back up files and to make room for new content or find old content to stream into the box. I could then take this box with me to a friend's house to watch my movies there.
SandynJosh
Apr 9, 02:25 PM
What's an assertation?
It's like a "revalation" without the "angals" sanging.
It's like a "revalation" without the "angals" sanging.
CaoCao
Mar 24, 11:01 PM
Perhaps I missed something but these all appear to be acts of violence against homosexuals. Don't get me wrong, they are horrible acts but I believe that CaoCao specifically stated acts motivated by mainstream Catholicism.
exactly, subtract the gangs, the mentally unstable, the non-Catholics and the inconclusively because the victim was homosexual and see where we are
exactly, subtract the gangs, the mentally unstable, the non-Catholics and the inconclusively because the victim was homosexual and see where we are
alexdrinan
Sep 12, 04:18 PM
It's already there they call it export to iPod.
Well there you go. But I assume it's converting the video to the low res format that the ipod can play. Do they have an export option that keeps it at the same quality it was recorded at?
Well there you go. But I assume it's converting the video to the low res format that the ipod can play. Do they have an export option that keeps it at the same quality it was recorded at?
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.
brent0saurus
Apr 9, 01:21 PM
Velly Intelrsting. Did they start out making games from rocks?
Nope, paper. They started off making card games in the 1800s.
Nope, paper. They started off making card games in the 1800s.
Sodner
Apr 21, 07:37 AM
I live in a country of excess. Excuse me if I don't weep at night because Kanye West or Lil Wayne are missing out on my $1+ for their songs.
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
However, with the little bit of knowledge that I have, my Android phone works just as well FOR ME, and I paid nothing for it.
What, did you steal that too?
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
However, with the little bit of knowledge that I have, my Android phone works just as well FOR ME, and I paid nothing for it.
What, did you steal that too?
iJaz
Aug 29, 03:37 PM
Bah, who cares, I used to dig Greenpeace but they are just rubbish nowadys.
No comments:
Post a Comment