dante@sisna.com
Nov 1, 11:02 AM
Oops! This makes me change my mind about buying this Fall:
"HP, and other OEMs, should have Clovertown gear ready on the 14th. Our sources inside HP say the chip is eating between 140 watts and 150 watts..." :eek:
"Intel hopes to deliver less power hungry parts in short order. CEO Paul Otellini has talked about 50W and 80W Clovertown parts set for the early part of 2007 (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/26/intel_quad-core_roadmap/)." :)
Guess I'm gonna have to be a little more patient a little longer in that case. That will be after MacWorld Expo toward the end of January then. Oh well. So much for immediate gratification. ;) Looks like waiting for the 8-core to ship with Leopard will jive with the cooler less power hungry monsters as well.
Thanks for bursting my bubble. :( I can get back to the business of another longer term wait similar to the wait for Santa Rosa or the mobile C2D MBP that's shipping now after 10 months of mobile CDs. At least it won't be that much longer. :cool: Looks like Clovertown Rev. B will be worth waiting for as well.
My apologies to all who were negatively infected by my extreeme enthusiasm for the first Clovertown release before I understood this new information. I can wait. I know some of you can't.
And I also may change my mind again when/if Apple releases a hot version first. Maybe they'll pass on the 150 watt models. Or perhaps they have real good cooling figured out. But I think I'd rather be ecological and buy what consumes less power anyway - especially in light of only another 2-3 months time.
Thanks to all who have invested time to collect and share information on Clovertons.
I have a couple of G5 Quads I was going to upgrade to Clovertons as well. Now, after viewing this short, but informative thread, I too, will wait until Mid-2007 and make the giant leap.
Appreciate everyone's efforts and intelligence.
Dante
CreativeBeans
"HP, and other OEMs, should have Clovertown gear ready on the 14th. Our sources inside HP say the chip is eating between 140 watts and 150 watts..." :eek:
"Intel hopes to deliver less power hungry parts in short order. CEO Paul Otellini has talked about 50W and 80W Clovertown parts set for the early part of 2007 (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/26/intel_quad-core_roadmap/)." :)
Guess I'm gonna have to be a little more patient a little longer in that case. That will be after MacWorld Expo toward the end of January then. Oh well. So much for immediate gratification. ;) Looks like waiting for the 8-core to ship with Leopard will jive with the cooler less power hungry monsters as well.
Thanks for bursting my bubble. :( I can get back to the business of another longer term wait similar to the wait for Santa Rosa or the mobile C2D MBP that's shipping now after 10 months of mobile CDs. At least it won't be that much longer. :cool: Looks like Clovertown Rev. B will be worth waiting for as well.
My apologies to all who were negatively infected by my extreeme enthusiasm for the first Clovertown release before I understood this new information. I can wait. I know some of you can't.
And I also may change my mind again when/if Apple releases a hot version first. Maybe they'll pass on the 150 watt models. Or perhaps they have real good cooling figured out. But I think I'd rather be ecological and buy what consumes less power anyway - especially in light of only another 2-3 months time.
Thanks to all who have invested time to collect and share information on Clovertons.
I have a couple of G5 Quads I was going to upgrade to Clovertons as well. Now, after viewing this short, but informative thread, I too, will wait until Mid-2007 and make the giant leap.
Appreciate everyone's efforts and intelligence.
Dante
CreativeBeans
armandocerna
Apr 6, 12:07 PM
One thing that got me was that you cannot make apps fill the screen without dragging and resizing. You can only resize from the bottom right corner. No real other annoyances for me that I can think of.
Try holding down SHIFT and clicking the green plus button it should full screen any app.
Try holding down SHIFT and clicking the green plus button it should full screen any app.
AidenShaw
Sep 26, 03:14 PM
im hoping that apple has optimized leopard to be able to assign certain applications to certain cores. just like what some of the other posters have said
4 cores for Cinema 4D
1 core for internet and mail
2 cores for photoshop
1 core for quicktime dvd playback
Unless you're doing realtime work with strict QoS demands, it's almost always better to let the OS schedule all threads across all CPUs.
In the situation you describe, your browser would slow down when mail woke up to do something - even if QT or photoshop were idle.
4 cores for Cinema 4D
1 core for internet and mail
2 cores for photoshop
1 core for quicktime dvd playback
Unless you're doing realtime work with strict QoS demands, it's almost always better to let the OS schedule all threads across all CPUs.
In the situation you describe, your browser would slow down when mail woke up to do something - even if QT or photoshop were idle.
greenstork
Sep 12, 04:50 PM
There's no need for DVR functionality. Apple will replace your cable subscription. You just subscribe to the shows you want and al la carte other shows after that. Networks will probably even do the season premieres free to get you hooked or add sponsor the shows to make them free. TV on demand is obviously the next wave - even the cable companies know it and have on demand etc. I mean not to be racist but I'm happy to stop paying comcast for the 10+ stations that are in languages I don't even speak. I barely speak english - hahaha.
In conclusion - its the same data - just different timing.
Except the quality just won't be there yet with this device. As everyone runs out to buy flat screen TVs this year and next, they're going to get home and want to play iTunes movies only to be completely dismayed by the 640x480 content/quality. 4:3 resolution, yuck :confused:
I know it's 802.11 and certainly features an HDMI out, but streaming 720p HD TV takes about 480 Mbps of bandwith, according to Ars:http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060906-7681.html Even 802.11n would have trouble with an uncompressed 720p signal, so quality will most likely be compromised as streaming video is increasingly compressed.
I'm happy to ditch Comcast's 25 shopping channels, in favor of a paid siubscription model, but I'm guessing that the cable & satellite companies are going to do HD a heck of a lot better than Apple.
And in the meantime, Apple's selection of TV shows kinda blows. There are one or two that I like that are available, and 10 shows that I love that are completely missing. Until everything I might want to watch is available, there's no way I'm ditching my cable company, and this may never happen.
Television content providers and producers are beholden to advertisers, who need a medium to peddle their wares. These advertisers hate this Apple subscription model, which I'm guessing is one of the big reasons why the iTV doesn't have any DVR capabilities.
Those companies that distribute television and movies (like Apple et al.) -- that are in bed with the content providers, don't really support/sell DVRs -- with the possible exception of the cable & satellite companies themselves, who have monopoly-like power.
I'm sure TiVo would have loved to implement a movie store years ago but the content providers hate TiVo. As cynical as it sounds, the only way you're going to get all of the technological functionality that you want is if you build it yourself or tolerate advertisements.
In conclusion - its the same data - just different timing.
Except the quality just won't be there yet with this device. As everyone runs out to buy flat screen TVs this year and next, they're going to get home and want to play iTunes movies only to be completely dismayed by the 640x480 content/quality. 4:3 resolution, yuck :confused:
I know it's 802.11 and certainly features an HDMI out, but streaming 720p HD TV takes about 480 Mbps of bandwith, according to Ars:http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060906-7681.html Even 802.11n would have trouble with an uncompressed 720p signal, so quality will most likely be compromised as streaming video is increasingly compressed.
I'm happy to ditch Comcast's 25 shopping channels, in favor of a paid siubscription model, but I'm guessing that the cable & satellite companies are going to do HD a heck of a lot better than Apple.
And in the meantime, Apple's selection of TV shows kinda blows. There are one or two that I like that are available, and 10 shows that I love that are completely missing. Until everything I might want to watch is available, there's no way I'm ditching my cable company, and this may never happen.
Television content providers and producers are beholden to advertisers, who need a medium to peddle their wares. These advertisers hate this Apple subscription model, which I'm guessing is one of the big reasons why the iTV doesn't have any DVR capabilities.
Those companies that distribute television and movies (like Apple et al.) -- that are in bed with the content providers, don't really support/sell DVRs -- with the possible exception of the cable & satellite companies themselves, who have monopoly-like power.
I'm sure TiVo would have loved to implement a movie store years ago but the content providers hate TiVo. As cynical as it sounds, the only way you're going to get all of the technological functionality that you want is if you build it yourself or tolerate advertisements.
rikers_mailbox
Sep 25, 11:54 PM
In the likely event Apple choses to use Cloverton Xeon core as the next Mac Pro CPU, educated speculation would indicate that Apple would elect to only use the X5355 and E5345..
http://www.MacSpeculation.com (http://www.macrumors.com) :confused:
fear. love yourself. as
love yourself portraits. quot
love yourself portraits.
or two to love yourself!
like you love yourself.
love yourself portraits.
quot;Love yourself..accept
love yourself portraits. the
If you love self-portraits,
you must love yourself.
YOU, love yourself”!
Cat with umbrella cat portrait
love yourself portraits. to
love yourself portraits. love
http://www.MacSpeculation.com (http://www.macrumors.com) :confused:
Cutwolf
Mar 18, 11:30 AM
Found it:
"Furthermore, plans (unless specifically designated for tethering usage) cannot be used for any applications that tether the device (through use of, including without limitation, connection kits, other phone/smartphone to computer accessories, BLUETOOTH� or any other wireless technology) to Personal Computers (including without limitation, laptops), or other equipment for any purpose. Accordingly, AT&T reserves the right to (i) deny, disconnect, modify and/or terminate Service, without notice, to anyone it believes is using the Service in any manner prohibited or whose usage adversely impacts its wireless network or service levels or hinders access to its wireless network, including without limitation, after a significant period of inactivity or after sessions of excessive usage and (ii) otherwise protect its wireless network from harm, compromised capacity or degradation in performance, which may impact legitimate data flows."
Interesting. All AT&T has to do is believe you're tethering and they can modify your plan? I'm going to keep tethering, and if they try to change my plan, get out of my contract with no ETF. Id also be very curious to see how the "believe" provision would hold up in court if they had no other proof than an increase in data usage. I'm guessing not very well.
"Furthermore, plans (unless specifically designated for tethering usage) cannot be used for any applications that tether the device (through use of, including without limitation, connection kits, other phone/smartphone to computer accessories, BLUETOOTH� or any other wireless technology) to Personal Computers (including without limitation, laptops), or other equipment for any purpose. Accordingly, AT&T reserves the right to (i) deny, disconnect, modify and/or terminate Service, without notice, to anyone it believes is using the Service in any manner prohibited or whose usage adversely impacts its wireless network or service levels or hinders access to its wireless network, including without limitation, after a significant period of inactivity or after sessions of excessive usage and (ii) otherwise protect its wireless network from harm, compromised capacity or degradation in performance, which may impact legitimate data flows."
Interesting. All AT&T has to do is believe you're tethering and they can modify your plan? I'm going to keep tethering, and if they try to change my plan, get out of my contract with no ETF. Id also be very curious to see how the "believe" provision would hold up in court if they had no other proof than an increase in data usage. I'm guessing not very well.
drsmithy
Sep 26, 09:17 PM
I snipped nothing.
The specific examples I refer to are putting applications in RAM, wherever that ram might be (ramdisc of main memory, ram based solid state drive on the drive bus, or memory drive on the graphics bus). Some applications greatly benefit from residing in RAM, such as compilers or image manipulators. Photoshop uses alot of swap space so you would need large ramdrives to benefit. I mainly am an advocate of ramdrives and see them underused in applications that would clearly benefit. Apple could gain some marketing points by simply offering such an option then bragging about it on TV of how a Mac is 20x as fast as a (stock) Dell :)
Rocketman
On modern platforms, the OS will "cache" (in reality it's a bit more complicated, but the effect is the same) the executable(s) and library(/ies) necessary for an application to execute at runtime and keep them in RAM unless the system is memory starved. As such, the only thing a RAM drive should speed up on a modern system is initial program load times.
RAM drives are (outside of corner cases like, say, for something like DB rollback logs) a crutch for systems with either insufficient real RAM (in which you should get more and let every aspect of the system benefit) or broken VM systems (in which case you should upgrade your OS and let every application benefit). Many of the methods you might have used to make your Mac II running System 7 faster don't really apply to modern OSes - RAM drives are one of them.
The specific examples I refer to are putting applications in RAM, wherever that ram might be (ramdisc of main memory, ram based solid state drive on the drive bus, or memory drive on the graphics bus). Some applications greatly benefit from residing in RAM, such as compilers or image manipulators. Photoshop uses alot of swap space so you would need large ramdrives to benefit. I mainly am an advocate of ramdrives and see them underused in applications that would clearly benefit. Apple could gain some marketing points by simply offering such an option then bragging about it on TV of how a Mac is 20x as fast as a (stock) Dell :)
Rocketman
On modern platforms, the OS will "cache" (in reality it's a bit more complicated, but the effect is the same) the executable(s) and library(/ies) necessary for an application to execute at runtime and keep them in RAM unless the system is memory starved. As such, the only thing a RAM drive should speed up on a modern system is initial program load times.
RAM drives are (outside of corner cases like, say, for something like DB rollback logs) a crutch for systems with either insufficient real RAM (in which you should get more and let every aspect of the system benefit) or broken VM systems (in which case you should upgrade your OS and let every application benefit). Many of the methods you might have used to make your Mac II running System 7 faster don't really apply to modern OSes - RAM drives are one of them.
AppliedVisual
Oct 30, 06:17 PM
Of course it will probably be slightly more expensive but with any luck less than it currently is to go from 1 to 2. Or for that matter 1 to 4. I find it hard to believe Apple will leave it's premiere flagship workstation shipping with less ram by default than it's laptop range. The RAM thing is confusing, I don't know whether I'm better off buying it with 1 gig then buying 4 1G sticks afterwards or whether that will affect performance and I'm better off just buying 4G straight from Apple.
Apple leaves the default RAM configuration small so that people can customize it to their needs - even with aftermarket RAM. If they boosted the base RAM to 2GB (or even 4GB), that would be great, but only if the price was still competitive. Apple's current RAM prices are not competitive, nowhere near close. Several vendors are now selling FB-DIMM memory with Apple-compliant heatsinks for half of what Apple is charging. But it has also been a few months since Apple has adjusted their prices on RAM... I guess we'll just see what happens when the updated Mac Pro offerings are announced.
I am also of the opinion that Apple should not sell the 512MB FB-DIMM modules since they only run at half-bandwidth of the 1 and 2 GB modules. Or they should offer the ability to buy the Mac Pro with no RAM. That would be interesting. I'm not sure if they'd go for selling a system config that would require a third-party purchase just to make it work.
Apple leaves the default RAM configuration small so that people can customize it to their needs - even with aftermarket RAM. If they boosted the base RAM to 2GB (or even 4GB), that would be great, but only if the price was still competitive. Apple's current RAM prices are not competitive, nowhere near close. Several vendors are now selling FB-DIMM memory with Apple-compliant heatsinks for half of what Apple is charging. But it has also been a few months since Apple has adjusted their prices on RAM... I guess we'll just see what happens when the updated Mac Pro offerings are announced.
I am also of the opinion that Apple should not sell the 512MB FB-DIMM modules since they only run at half-bandwidth of the 1 and 2 GB modules. Or they should offer the ability to buy the Mac Pro with no RAM. That would be interesting. I'm not sure if they'd go for selling a system config that would require a third-party purchase just to make it work.
Chupa Chupa
Apr 13, 05:53 AM
Unfortunately, its already the case. When the DTP kicked in Apple was all pro and nothing else. Apple was for media creators and scientists. Now its the opposite.
That is a bit of a retelling of history.
When DTP kicked in in the late 80s, early 90s's, Jobs was already out of Apple and Apple started it's slow, painful downslide. The publishing and scientific markets were the only ones Apple had, not because that was Apple's stated mission, but because it was its lifeline, and mostly because Pagemaker, then Photoshop & Quark, on the Mac was superior to the Windows version. (Quark was Mac only for a couple years)
Apple badly botched the consumer market in the '90s by making 1001 Performa desktops confusing just about everyone, plus Macs were 2x more expensive than PCs with 1/2 of the popular s/w titles. Apple wanted this market, it just didn't know how to capture it and make a profit.
Every long time Apple follower knows that Jobs original mission for Apple, and especially the Mac, was to produce a computer for "the rest of us." Jobs has always been about making computing simpler and more refined. He did not set out to serve the pro community.
Lets dismiss these myths, and brush off the snobbery, contending that Apple was originally built to cater to the pro community and it sold out. That has never been its mission. It makes products that pros like, but it is a consumer electronics company, just like Sony or Panasonic, or Canon or Nikon, etc., etc.
That is a bit of a retelling of history.
When DTP kicked in in the late 80s, early 90s's, Jobs was already out of Apple and Apple started it's slow, painful downslide. The publishing and scientific markets were the only ones Apple had, not because that was Apple's stated mission, but because it was its lifeline, and mostly because Pagemaker, then Photoshop & Quark, on the Mac was superior to the Windows version. (Quark was Mac only for a couple years)
Apple badly botched the consumer market in the '90s by making 1001 Performa desktops confusing just about everyone, plus Macs were 2x more expensive than PCs with 1/2 of the popular s/w titles. Apple wanted this market, it just didn't know how to capture it and make a profit.
Every long time Apple follower knows that Jobs original mission for Apple, and especially the Mac, was to produce a computer for "the rest of us." Jobs has always been about making computing simpler and more refined. He did not set out to serve the pro community.
Lets dismiss these myths, and brush off the snobbery, contending that Apple was originally built to cater to the pro community and it sold out. That has never been its mission. It makes products that pros like, but it is a consumer electronics company, just like Sony or Panasonic, or Canon or Nikon, etc., etc.
alex_ant
Oct 7, 04:35 PM
I wish I could leave. Macrumors is to the GPA what the bug zapper is to the fly.
asdf542
Apr 13, 05:03 AM
Full keynote has been uploaded to YouTube -
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VLwsfBa71U
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfgnyRSRyzg
3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3OI3RGdhrM
4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M16Hb4_3oOY
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VLwsfBa71U
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfgnyRSRyzg
3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3OI3RGdhrM
4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M16Hb4_3oOY
Rodimus Prime
Apr 15, 09:50 AM
You could make the argument that a certain amount of bullying is actually a good thing because it forces kids to develop a thick skin and learn how to deal with aggressive and negative people.
Life isn't a nice place -- and it's not like you can rat to a teacher or your parents if your boss is a d-bag who makes your life miserable every day because he is charge.
there is a very fine limit to it. Problem is a VERY VERY small percentage of people are going to take on 99% of the bulling.
Class of 30 students you will have 1 kid who is targeted. As that moves up to Jr high and high school the ratio gets even worse were you may find a 100 to 1 or higher ratio. That 1% has to take on 99% of the bulling and what makes it worse is that same 1% is not going to be helped or defended by others for fear of them being dragged into it and being the target as well. It is ugly. I was on the receiving side.
It is one thing for minor picking on things from friends but another for bulling.
Life isn't a nice place -- and it's not like you can rat to a teacher or your parents if your boss is a d-bag who makes your life miserable every day because he is charge.
there is a very fine limit to it. Problem is a VERY VERY small percentage of people are going to take on 99% of the bulling.
Class of 30 students you will have 1 kid who is targeted. As that moves up to Jr high and high school the ratio gets even worse were you may find a 100 to 1 or higher ratio. That 1% has to take on 99% of the bulling and what makes it worse is that same 1% is not going to be helped or defended by others for fear of them being dragged into it and being the target as well. It is ugly. I was on the receiving side.
It is one thing for minor picking on things from friends but another for bulling.
solafide
Sep 12, 07:48 PM
I think this will be a great first step for Apple. Long term, I'd like to be able archive all my DVDs and play them through iTunes, just as I have done with my CDs. In the mid to long term, this would mean that Apple would have to work out a deal with a DRM solution with the content owners that would allow for a DVD (obviously this would not work with my currently owned DVDs) to be stored on a computer - authenticating back to the content owner's server, for example.
It may not be worth it, as everything will likely go to digital delivery anyway, in time.
I also would like a DVR, but in the long run, the traditional delivery model of TV will likely change. iTunes is a small foretaste. This would be huge, as it would necessarily change where, who, and how advertising dollars would be made. I betcha this will be keeping the cable, network, and movie execs up at night thinking through how they can control this potential shift in power and revenue to their own benefit.
All I know is I want to get rid of all the boxes surrounding my TV and speaker system, and be able to control all my TV, video, and audio assets through the TV - in the kind of eloquent way that it seems only Apple is capable of (I am sure this is not true - but I believe they have the best shot at providing an end-to-end user-friendly system).
The next few years are going to be very interesting.
It may not be worth it, as everything will likely go to digital delivery anyway, in time.
I also would like a DVR, but in the long run, the traditional delivery model of TV will likely change. iTunes is a small foretaste. This would be huge, as it would necessarily change where, who, and how advertising dollars would be made. I betcha this will be keeping the cable, network, and movie execs up at night thinking through how they can control this potential shift in power and revenue to their own benefit.
All I know is I want to get rid of all the boxes surrounding my TV and speaker system, and be able to control all my TV, video, and audio assets through the TV - in the kind of eloquent way that it seems only Apple is capable of (I am sure this is not true - but I believe they have the best shot at providing an end-to-end user-friendly system).
The next few years are going to be very interesting.
Luph67
Apr 6, 09:27 PM
Is customization really any worse than windows? I have never found customization in windows to be very intuitive, and one of the draws for OS X for me would be that it looks so much cleaner (by default). I've spent ages customizing windows and can never make it look good with solid-style windows anymore. It's either transparency or it looks horrible, and I am not a big fan of transparency or aero. The only thing I can imagine wanting to customize in OS X are the icons and I already know that much easier solutions exist than for windows.
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
ten-oak-druid
Apr 20, 05:19 PM
It will be interesting 10 years from now to compare the number of viruses that will have occurred on android vs. iOS.
~loserman~
Mar 20, 05:17 PM
The trouble with DRM is that it often affects the average Joe consumer more than it hurts those it's intended to stop.
CDs that don't play in a PC annoy Joe Public who buys a CD and wants to listen to it on his office PC while at work. The guy who planned on pirating it can easily get round the DRM and go on his merry way.
DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.
The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.
Therein lay the problem. Most people are using the music illegally.
The record industry is right.
In your own analogy of Joe Public burning a track on his wedding video.
Guess what? when he distributes those copies to wedding guests he breaks the law.
It's illegal for him to do that. It is stealing. He pirated it.
The problem is we have become so used to stealing that we don't recognize it as such anymore. We justify it away.
Almost no one would even consider it to be wrong if they bought a cd copied it and gave it to their friends. It is wrong. It's stealing/pirating.
CDs that don't play in a PC annoy Joe Public who buys a CD and wants to listen to it on his office PC while at work. The guy who planned on pirating it can easily get round the DRM and go on his merry way.
DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.
The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.
Therein lay the problem. Most people are using the music illegally.
The record industry is right.
In your own analogy of Joe Public burning a track on his wedding video.
Guess what? when he distributes those copies to wedding guests he breaks the law.
It's illegal for him to do that. It is stealing. He pirated it.
The problem is we have become so used to stealing that we don't recognize it as such anymore. We justify it away.
Almost no one would even consider it to be wrong if they bought a cd copied it and gave it to their friends. It is wrong. It's stealing/pirating.
theheyes
May 2, 05:10 PM
I can't think of anywhere else on the internet where users are so pedantic about whether a piece of malware is a virus or not. It's completely missing the point. The amount of malware out there for Macs is very slowly increasing, which, in itself, is increasing the probability of infecting the user base and Macs can be remotely exploited just like any other operating system.
Instead of rebuffing the emergence of Mac malware with technicalities and pointing the finger at other products, it would be more useful to think about what it means to you, the user. Do you need to run out and buy an antivirus product? No, probably not. If you're someone who keeps on top of software updates and are generally sensible in how you use a computer then you're fine to carry on.
On the other hand, if you're someone who peruses file sharing services and questionable websites for dodgy content and pirated software then it's becoming increasingly more likely that one day you'll get burned. Highly likely? No, not yet, but it would be foolish to assume immunity to computer security issues based solely on the fact that something so far has not met the strict definition of "virus".
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
Instead of rebuffing the emergence of Mac malware with technicalities and pointing the finger at other products, it would be more useful to think about what it means to you, the user. Do you need to run out and buy an antivirus product? No, probably not. If you're someone who keeps on top of software updates and are generally sensible in how you use a computer then you're fine to carry on.
On the other hand, if you're someone who peruses file sharing services and questionable websites for dodgy content and pirated software then it's becoming increasingly more likely that one day you'll get burned. Highly likely? No, not yet, but it would be foolish to assume immunity to computer security issues based solely on the fact that something so far has not met the strict definition of "virus".
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
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
PeterQVenkman
Apr 9, 11:59 AM
Watch as Apple continues to drink Nintendo and Sony's milkshakes. It amazing that Nintendo is so dismissive of Apple's devices, when Apple is doing exactly what Nintendo did with the Wii. Blue Ocean strategy.
SimD
Apr 12, 11:00 PM
I'm out of this thread.
Avid/Final Cut bashing is useless. Both have their place in the industry. Heck, both are sometimes used together...
Same goes for Adobe. It has its uses.
No need to boast about one being better than the other. Coppola's editor uses Final Cut, the Coen Bros use Final Cut, Fincher's editor uses Final Cut. And a **** load of editors use Avid. Is one film better because of the editing software? Not in my eyes.
Anyway, the update looks promising. I'm excited.
Happy editing. Ciao.
Avid/Final Cut bashing is useless. Both have their place in the industry. Heck, both are sometimes used together...
Same goes for Adobe. It has its uses.
No need to boast about one being better than the other. Coppola's editor uses Final Cut, the Coen Bros use Final Cut, Fincher's editor uses Final Cut. And a **** load of editors use Avid. Is one film better because of the editing software? Not in my eyes.
Anyway, the update looks promising. I'm excited.
Happy editing. Ciao.
dgbowers
Apr 5, 10:53 PM
What if I just want my top 10 favorites? In Windows I just drag the icon (of whatever I want) to the Start button, then drop it into the list of my favorites (I'm not sure of the actual term for this). Can this be done on a Mac?
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
You can drag pretty much any folder down to the Dock, and you can make Aliases (Shortcuts) of any application you want, then put them in a folder on the Dock.
Check my screenshot for what I mean.
Do keep in mind that you can just drag the apps to the Dock and keep them there, I hardly ever go into my Applications folder, because all of the things I use every day are in the Dock.
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
You can drag pretty much any folder down to the Dock, and you can make Aliases (Shortcuts) of any application you want, then put them in a folder on the Dock.
Check my screenshot for what I mean.
Do keep in mind that you can just drag the apps to the Dock and keep them there, I hardly ever go into my Applications folder, because all of the things I use every day are in the Dock.
radio893fm
Aug 30, 12:49 AM
Thank God Apple users just amount 3% -or something like that- in the computer industry (forget about the ipod)...
If everybody thought like most people in this board, the world would be a more scarier (if possible) place to live in...
If everybody thought like most people in this board, the world would be a more scarier (if possible) place to live in...
mrblah
Aug 29, 02:33 PM
I swear, some people will excuse Apple of genocide if given the chance. How is it that Apple is doing "everything they can" when Dell is doing so much better? They both make the same things! Same with Motorola and Nokia. We even have some conspiracy theorists thinking Greenpeace is out to get Apple (although they seem to miss the part where Acer scores worse, and happens to be a PC maker). Its simply impossible to try and excuse Apple when a company like Dell does better, not caring about companies destroying the environment is one thing but trying to pretend Apple is actually doing a good job is another.
No comments:
Post a Comment