beret9987
Nov 12, 03:09 PM
Add me to the unhappy list. Granted me I'm in California, a place where AT&T data services are notorious for not working that well. I'm currently on Sprint and quite happy. Shame the iPhone is only limited to one network in the US though.
fpnc
Mar 19, 01:54 AM
tveric, actually, I didn't call any individual "stupid," I said you'd have to be stupid to use PyMusique (the former and the latter are not exactly the same thing). Sorry if you were somehow offended.
Everybody relax.
I am.
I agree however that Apple will probably soon block access through PyMusique and that might not even require any changes other than on the server side of the music store. That's another reason why this whole story is pretty much overblown.
Well, 18 hours later, here we are, I used a Pepsi cap song to download thru PyMusique, it plays perfectly and all that, and so far my account hasn't been cancelled. You know why? Because it JUST ISN'T WORTH THE FRIGGIN EFFORT on Apple's part to start cancelling accounts for using this software. They have to come up with a block to PyM anyway, and that will solve all their problems.
As for violation of the TOS, nobody gives a rip except people who were hall monitors in high school. And as for being stupid, well, maybe some of us just like our freedom without limits. You can attack us for being "stupid" all you want, but that doesn't necessarily make it the truth. Get used to it - DRM is a paper tiger. I buy music thru iTMS, I buy music on CD, I buy it at allofmp3.com for a dollar an album, and I download for free too. No amount of DRM is going to make me change my habits. Only differences in prices and convenience will make me shift from one method to another when required.
Everybody relax.
I am.
I agree however that Apple will probably soon block access through PyMusique and that might not even require any changes other than on the server side of the music store. That's another reason why this whole story is pretty much overblown.
Well, 18 hours later, here we are, I used a Pepsi cap song to download thru PyMusique, it plays perfectly and all that, and so far my account hasn't been cancelled. You know why? Because it JUST ISN'T WORTH THE FRIGGIN EFFORT on Apple's part to start cancelling accounts for using this software. They have to come up with a block to PyM anyway, and that will solve all their problems.
As for violation of the TOS, nobody gives a rip except people who were hall monitors in high school. And as for being stupid, well, maybe some of us just like our freedom without limits. You can attack us for being "stupid" all you want, but that doesn't necessarily make it the truth. Get used to it - DRM is a paper tiger. I buy music thru iTMS, I buy music on CD, I buy it at allofmp3.com for a dollar an album, and I download for free too. No amount of DRM is going to make me change my habits. Only differences in prices and convenience will make me shift from one method to another when required.
citizenzen
Apr 22, 10:52 PM
If you learned that a huge portion of those really crazy doctrines were simply wrong, would it cause you to view Christianity/religion differently?.
In my view, Christianity is an extreme mythologizing of the unknown and unknowable.
In my view, a huge portions of those "really crazy doctrines" are wrong.
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Exactly.
Pray to Ba'al lately?
In my view, Christianity is an extreme mythologizing of the unknown and unknowable.
In my view, a huge portions of those "really crazy doctrines" are wrong.
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Exactly.
Pray to Ba'al lately?
Lau
Aug 29, 11:11 AM
zero evidence, other than my gut feeling.
But come on, Dell more green than Apple? Something is not right here.
Hmm. Gut feeling's all very well, but Apple obviously do a great job of marketing themselves as a friendly green company and we may go round believing that without evidence, and it looks as if the figures don't back them up.
I wonder if they mentioned the fact that Dell has made the computer a disposable purchase with their $299 PCs.
That's a good point, actually, it's much better to make a long-lasting product than a crappy one that's recycled when it breaks. It's a shame that iPods are effectively disposable though. To be able to replace the battery in particular, and possibly the hard drive, would make it a much more longer lasting product.
But come on, Dell more green than Apple? Something is not right here.
Hmm. Gut feeling's all very well, but Apple obviously do a great job of marketing themselves as a friendly green company and we may go round believing that without evidence, and it looks as if the figures don't back them up.
I wonder if they mentioned the fact that Dell has made the computer a disposable purchase with their $299 PCs.
That's a good point, actually, it's much better to make a long-lasting product than a crappy one that's recycled when it breaks. It's a shame that iPods are effectively disposable though. To be able to replace the battery in particular, and possibly the hard drive, would make it a much more longer lasting product.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 23, 05:28 PM
It's easily possible for a European atheist to not be exposed to religion, grow up happily with their own set of ethics and morals, and never be challenged over their lack of belief. Intellectually lazy? Not really... why should anyone have to jump through hoops to prove the non existence of a god?
You're quite right, and I agree that people are free to believe whatever they want. However, if they just believe something because "it's always been that way" or some other arbitrary reason then I don't have to respect them or take their beliefs seriously.
I've found the response of some of the devout atheist posters in this thread very interesting, some of the others are of the "God doesn't exist, meh" camp, who I just ignore.
You're quite right, and I agree that people are free to believe whatever they want. However, if they just believe something because "it's always been that way" or some other arbitrary reason then I don't have to respect them or take their beliefs seriously.
I've found the response of some of the devout atheist posters in this thread very interesting, some of the others are of the "God doesn't exist, meh" camp, who I just ignore.
qubex
Mar 19, 08:52 AM
Apple programmed a flawed system - it's only fair somebody has bothered to exploit it. Maybe now they can rebuild it in a manner that is secure.
Mikael
Jul 12, 03:42 PM
I think his point was that most tech geeks are freaking out about the revolutionary core 2 architecture, be it in the conroe, woodcrest or merom. For people to view conroe as a lesser chip in some way smacks of mac snobbery and I tend to agree with him.
Exactly. Numerous people have tried to explain that Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest basically are the same CPU, yet few people seem to have understood it yet. The differences between the parts are almost exclusively external (or atleast not related to the execution core), like socket and FSB frequency. The core architecture has even been said by Intel reps to be the same. The only reason for a Woodcrest CPU to perform better than a Conroe (the non-Extreme edition) would be because of the slightly faster FSB. This advantage could soon be negated by the use of FB-DIMMs.
So, why get so worked up over this?
Exactly. Numerous people have tried to explain that Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest basically are the same CPU, yet few people seem to have understood it yet. The differences between the parts are almost exclusively external (or atleast not related to the execution core), like socket and FSB frequency. The core architecture has even been said by Intel reps to be the same. The only reason for a Woodcrest CPU to perform better than a Conroe (the non-Extreme edition) would be because of the slightly faster FSB. This advantage could soon be negated by the use of FB-DIMMs.
So, why get so worked up over this?
maxspivak
Sep 12, 03:37 PM
If the want to move into the den or living room, or better yet the home theater, they need more functionality for iTV. As described, it's more of a client for iTunes. Sure, it will automatically download and play movies and songs. But...
Quality: there are differences in iPod quality and home theater / big stereo system. I can happily accept lossy compression for iPod. Not so for multi-thousand-$$$ stereo system. Give me lossless compression from ITMS.
Same goes for movies. I don't want near-DVD quality stretched to my 120" screen. Even with a high-quality video scaler. I want HD - blueray or hd-dvd. I can rent hi-def disks from netflix today. Why, why would I settle for quality worse than what DVDs gave me for the last 10 years???
At least give me an optical disk. Better yet, break some new ground, give me a combo BluRay / HD-DVD drive!!!
Add's functionality -- how 'bout a PVR.
Will I buy one -- probably. But I expected something abit more radical than what they showed.
Quality: there are differences in iPod quality and home theater / big stereo system. I can happily accept lossy compression for iPod. Not so for multi-thousand-$$$ stereo system. Give me lossless compression from ITMS.
Same goes for movies. I don't want near-DVD quality stretched to my 120" screen. Even with a high-quality video scaler. I want HD - blueray or hd-dvd. I can rent hi-def disks from netflix today. Why, why would I settle for quality worse than what DVDs gave me for the last 10 years???
At least give me an optical disk. Better yet, break some new ground, give me a combo BluRay / HD-DVD drive!!!
Add's functionality -- how 'bout a PVR.
Will I buy one -- probably. But I expected something abit more radical than what they showed.
iMikeT
Sep 20, 07:18 AM
I'm looking forward to iTV. [Wishful thinking] Too bad it doesn't run Mac OS X...
faroZ06
May 2, 06:22 PM
About as huge as most windows ones!
No, I'd much rather be hit with this than some virus that comes in through an eMail and takes over my system.
No, I'd much rather be hit with this than some virus that comes in through an eMail and takes over my system.
Clive At Five
Sep 21, 12:43 PM
I think we'd all agree it'd be nice for Apple to have more of a worldwide presence. As for emerging technologies, global efforts require a lot more research and funding than if Apple were to just stay in the U.S. That's why Apple's technologies always start here.
Think about it: Apple started iTunes nationally. It took a little time to get going but eventually it took off and Apple had the confidence that it would work world-wide... so they started expanding.
But imagine instead that Apple unleashed iTunes worldwide from day one. The investment required for something like that would have been MUCH too high for the risk of the project.
The same goes for TV content. TV content on the iTS is still relatively new and now that Apple has seen the success of it in the US, they will start expanding world-wide. In fact, Apple has seen the success of the iTS as a whole and knows that its reputation is favorable. This will allow them to expand their new content globally in a shorter amount of time (since it's less of a risk now).
It's more than just reputation, though. Different places around the world have different licensing requirements, so it's not as simple as flicking a switch and allowing other countries to connect to the iTS. There's a lot of bureaucracy and negotiations involved.
So if you, and everyone else will have a bit of patience, Apple will work their way out to you. Apple is a U.S. company. If you're not in the U.S., you can't expect Apple's merchandise and services immediately upon release. It just doesn't work that way.
-Clive
Think about it: Apple started iTunes nationally. It took a little time to get going but eventually it took off and Apple had the confidence that it would work world-wide... so they started expanding.
But imagine instead that Apple unleashed iTunes worldwide from day one. The investment required for something like that would have been MUCH too high for the risk of the project.
The same goes for TV content. TV content on the iTS is still relatively new and now that Apple has seen the success of it in the US, they will start expanding world-wide. In fact, Apple has seen the success of the iTS as a whole and knows that its reputation is favorable. This will allow them to expand their new content globally in a shorter amount of time (since it's less of a risk now).
It's more than just reputation, though. Different places around the world have different licensing requirements, so it's not as simple as flicking a switch and allowing other countries to connect to the iTS. There's a lot of bureaucracy and negotiations involved.
So if you, and everyone else will have a bit of patience, Apple will work their way out to you. Apple is a U.S. company. If you're not in the U.S., you can't expect Apple's merchandise and services immediately upon release. It just doesn't work that way.
-Clive
FFTT
Jul 12, 08:48 PM
Just got Tom's Hardware Guide's publication today about Project Keifer.
Intel's projected 32 Core processor. :D
"Intel has been studying Sun's UltraSPARC T1 (Niagara) to come up with a radical processor redesign for 2010 that could perform 16 times faster than Woodcrest. This is no marketing blurb, guys; this is technical intelligence from within the Borg collective."
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/10/project_keifer_32_core/index.html
Intel's projected 32 Core processor. :D
"Intel has been studying Sun's UltraSPARC T1 (Niagara) to come up with a radical processor redesign for 2010 that could perform 16 times faster than Woodcrest. This is no marketing blurb, guys; this is technical intelligence from within the Borg collective."
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/10/project_keifer_32_core/index.html
capvideo
Mar 21, 01:37 AM
Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy.
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.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
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.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
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.
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.
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.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
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.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
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.
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?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
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.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
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.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
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.
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.
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.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
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.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
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.
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?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
skunk
Mar 27, 07:46 PM
If I've harmed anyone in anyone in any way, I want to hear about that from the harmed ones. Everyone here is welcome to his opinion about me. If anyone here hates me, he's welcome to say so publicly or privately. But I think I'm the only one here who knows whether I hate anyone. We're strangers to one another.I do not hate you in the least, but I do recognise hateful, dogmatic propaganda when I see it.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 06:44 PM
You and I have a terribly different definition of ruins I suppose. I consider a place ruins when its not even inhabitable.
Well if you were to look at world history, rather than just look at the world through a religious lens, you'd know the reasons for ongoing conflicts in much of that section of the world. Hint: it tends to do with imperialists powers tamperings.
Also, where is the biggest muslim population in the world? ;)
Most Islamic countries are not inhabitable by homosexuals or religious minorities, your mileage may vary.
The biggest muslim population right now is Indonesia, and they tried banning Christians from using Allah to describe their God. They're also trying to ban the Ahmadiyah sect...
I don't think France or Britain are responsible for Iran's strict implementation of Islamic law and ruthless persecution of dissidents, and to claim that they are responsible is insulting to Muslims because it implies they're far too reactionary to deal with anything using Reason. Just like people who want to ban qur'an burnings and blasphemy because they're afraid of how muslims might react. Are Muslims animals who are so easily goaded? No, they're human beings so they should be expected to act responsibly and not go on rampages at the slightest provocation.
Well if you were to look at world history, rather than just look at the world through a religious lens, you'd know the reasons for ongoing conflicts in much of that section of the world. Hint: it tends to do with imperialists powers tamperings.
Also, where is the biggest muslim population in the world? ;)
Most Islamic countries are not inhabitable by homosexuals or religious minorities, your mileage may vary.
The biggest muslim population right now is Indonesia, and they tried banning Christians from using Allah to describe their God. They're also trying to ban the Ahmadiyah sect...
I don't think France or Britain are responsible for Iran's strict implementation of Islamic law and ruthless persecution of dissidents, and to claim that they are responsible is insulting to Muslims because it implies they're far too reactionary to deal with anything using Reason. Just like people who want to ban qur'an burnings and blasphemy because they're afraid of how muslims might react. Are Muslims animals who are so easily goaded? No, they're human beings so they should be expected to act responsibly and not go on rampages at the slightest provocation.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 10:01 AM
I don't agree. If those groups got organized, their message would eventually get picked up my the media. It's not like LGBT groups were started last weekend and, bam, the media picked up on it. It took decades for them to get to this point of media attention.
And I agree with Heilage: the message from the video doesn't only apply to LGBT folk.
Got organized? Like that sad attempt at a "Fat Acceptance" movement? News flash - nobody likes fat people because they are seen as ugly and gross. Find me a single obesity related story on the news that isn't accompanied by B-roll of headless fat bodies walking around the city holding ice cream cones.
Imagine if every time a gay related story were on the news they showed B-roll of men in darkened gay theaters and closeups of prescription labels for antiretrovirals.
And I agree with Heilage: the message from the video doesn't only apply to LGBT folk.
Got organized? Like that sad attempt at a "Fat Acceptance" movement? News flash - nobody likes fat people because they are seen as ugly and gross. Find me a single obesity related story on the news that isn't accompanied by B-roll of headless fat bodies walking around the city holding ice cream cones.
Imagine if every time a gay related story were on the news they showed B-roll of men in darkened gay theaters and closeups of prescription labels for antiretrovirals.
LagunaSol
Apr 28, 02:13 PM
Software might not need that powerful of a processor, but what about OS? Heck Itunes shutters on my bros 2008 Macbook Pro, which is basic software.
Huh? A 2008 MBP should have no problem running iTunes.
Flash can barely run on his computer also.
Flash for Mac sucks even on the most high-end Macs. Why do you think Mac users tend to dislike Flash? It's not the Mac - it's Adobe.
Huh? A 2008 MBP should have no problem running iTunes.
Flash can barely run on his computer also.
Flash for Mac sucks even on the most high-end Macs. Why do you think Mac users tend to dislike Flash? It's not the Mac - it's Adobe.
dudemac
Mar 18, 03:58 PM
To all but a few of the replies so far that seem totally out raged by this,
\
First there is no support for itms on linux as it currently stands and this just allows user of linux to purchase songs from the itms and play them on that platform. It also allows someone like me who has a high speed connection at work to purchase music and take it home with me. Yes I have a couple of mac's and an ipod, so my loyalty hasn't changed.
Secoundly this doesn't hack the DRM that apple supplies, however it does violate the EULA, which I don't know anyone that doesn't violate a EULA at least once a day. But that is really a different argument.
Finally why is there no outrage that DRM is not optional or that there hasn't been a standardized format for music. There are reasons why the mini disc failed and it had nothing to do with quality. But it was a propriotary format that needed to be liscencsed. So when looking at the delima of DRM it should be more of a how do we get everything to play everywhere kind of question then just limiting how the user can play/share the music at home. I really hate being limited for "my own good". or more appropriately for the good of a corporation. If WMA beats apple it will only be because they failed to standardize and work within the industry.
Lady Gaga covers NME Magazine
\
First there is no support for itms on linux as it currently stands and this just allows user of linux to purchase songs from the itms and play them on that platform. It also allows someone like me who has a high speed connection at work to purchase music and take it home with me. Yes I have a couple of mac's and an ipod, so my loyalty hasn't changed.
Secoundly this doesn't hack the DRM that apple supplies, however it does violate the EULA, which I don't know anyone that doesn't violate a EULA at least once a day. But that is really a different argument.
Finally why is there no outrage that DRM is not optional or that there hasn't been a standardized format for music. There are reasons why the mini disc failed and it had nothing to do with quality. But it was a propriotary format that needed to be liscencsed. So when looking at the delima of DRM it should be more of a how do we get everything to play everywhere kind of question then just limiting how the user can play/share the music at home. I really hate being limited for "my own good". or more appropriately for the good of a corporation. If WMA beats apple it will only be because they failed to standardize and work within the industry.
aswitcher
Jul 12, 06:33 AM
I really hope they are right about a the low cost single chip version so we can make good home multimedia center.
fishmoose
Apr 20, 05:33 PM
Good to hear Jobs isn't planning to retire. The question about Android being like Windows was to the Mac to iOS was probably the dumbest question of the call.
Drewnrupe
Sep 12, 04:00 PM
Please excuse me if I am missing something totally obvious here as I am a relatively new convert to Apple.
This looks like a nice little solution but I am not sure its anything revoloutionary. I currently have an airport express in the bedroom connected to an eyehome unit that does the same job as far as i can see.
Granted it cannot handle Purchased itunes songs ( which i can stream out of the airport directly though) and I guess therfore wont play itunes movies - but that is an apple restriction on ElGato.
As far as TV goes though, this setup with an EyeTV 200 attached to the computer is effectively the Tivo Killer I keep hearing talk of - I certainly chose this route after discovering that the tivo lifetime licenses were not available any more and not wanting another bill every month.
The apple box also would not work for me (as far as I could see) as I use a regular old TV in the bedroom without component inputs - just rca and s video.
Plus I get the benefit of the airport express extending my wireless network into the bedroom so laptop access is great throughout the house now.
Seems that downloaded movies arent going to be big in this house if i need to replace current hardware with something so similar that wont drive my TV (and who knows if it will pick up eyeTV programs either ) just to watch the purchased movies.
So can someone enlighten me what was so different about the Eyehome and airport express combo that makes this new box so great ? ( I am really open to being convinced - dont usually have a problem talking myself ito new toys)
Current setup Will be even better when this 700 G4 gets replaced by the new 24" imac arriving Friday ....... wasnt supposed to ship until the 18th !!!! Im Stoked
Drew
This looks like a nice little solution but I am not sure its anything revoloutionary. I currently have an airport express in the bedroom connected to an eyehome unit that does the same job as far as i can see.
Granted it cannot handle Purchased itunes songs ( which i can stream out of the airport directly though) and I guess therfore wont play itunes movies - but that is an apple restriction on ElGato.
As far as TV goes though, this setup with an EyeTV 200 attached to the computer is effectively the Tivo Killer I keep hearing talk of - I certainly chose this route after discovering that the tivo lifetime licenses were not available any more and not wanting another bill every month.
The apple box also would not work for me (as far as I could see) as I use a regular old TV in the bedroom without component inputs - just rca and s video.
Plus I get the benefit of the airport express extending my wireless network into the bedroom so laptop access is great throughout the house now.
Seems that downloaded movies arent going to be big in this house if i need to replace current hardware with something so similar that wont drive my TV (and who knows if it will pick up eyeTV programs either ) just to watch the purchased movies.
So can someone enlighten me what was so different about the Eyehome and airport express combo that makes this new box so great ? ( I am really open to being convinced - dont usually have a problem talking myself ito new toys)
Current setup Will be even better when this 700 G4 gets replaced by the new 24" imac arriving Friday ....... wasnt supposed to ship until the 18th !!!! Im Stoked
Drew
myamid
Sep 12, 06:24 PM
The Eye Home does not have Component and HDMI inputs.
Wireless isn't built in.
It's not an Apple product that will work better with Front Row than Eye Home will.
Not completely accurate... EyeHome has component out - with a pretty decent 1080i Software Upconvert over Component to an HDTV set...
Wireless isn't built in.
It's not an Apple product that will work better with Front Row than Eye Home will.
Not completely accurate... EyeHome has component out - with a pretty decent 1080i Software Upconvert over Component to an HDTV set...
gnasher729
May 2, 12:28 PM
I haven't seen this malware first hand, but a zip file can be made with absolute paths, making "unzipping" the file put everything where it needs to be to start up automatically on next log in/reboot.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
What makes you think MacOS X still contains directory traversal vulnerabilities that were reported in 2005? Do you really think MacOS X hasn't included the known fixes that were added six years ago? Opening a zip file on MacOS X _is_ safe. Of course that zip file can contain malware, which will then by on your Mac, exactly as if you had downloaded it directly. You still have to start the malware yourself, and you will still be asked by the OS if you really, really want to run the malware.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
What makes you think MacOS X still contains directory traversal vulnerabilities that were reported in 2005? Do you really think MacOS X hasn't included the known fixes that were added six years ago? Opening a zip file on MacOS X _is_ safe. Of course that zip file can contain malware, which will then by on your Mac, exactly as if you had downloaded it directly. You still have to start the malware yourself, and you will still be asked by the OS if you really, really want to run the malware.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 10:16 AM
I don't know, I don't have any answers. It's easier to destroy than create.
A few European posters have backed up my assessments tho, about Europeans being less likely to be challenged on their beliefs. In fact, you're more likely to be viewed as odd if you profess a strong Christian belief.
Maybe deep down I'm an atheist too, and 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.
Don't forget, many of the batshit crazy rules that a lot of Christians are meant to follow are actually interpretations of the clergy, rather than being derived from the Bible. This was (along with papal bulls, simony, etc) what helped spur the creation of protestantism which did away with a lot of the incomprehensible dross inherent in Catholicism and tried instead to get back to the most fundamental message in the Bible.
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 World
A few European posters have backed up my assessments tho, about Europeans being less likely to be challenged on their beliefs. In fact, you're more likely to be viewed as odd if you profess a strong Christian belief.
Maybe deep down I'm an atheist too, and 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.
Don't forget, many of the batshit crazy rules that a lot of Christians are meant to follow are actually interpretations of the clergy, rather than being derived from the Bible. This was (along with papal bulls, simony, etc) what helped spur the creation of protestantism which did away with a lot of the incomprehensible dross inherent in Catholicism and tried instead to get back to the most fundamental message in the Bible.
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 World
No comments:
Post a Comment