brianus
Sep 26, 12:47 PM
Tigerton is after Clovertown. It's 4 cores in a one dye package instead of 4 cores in two dyes in one package. But I'm not gonna wait for Tigerrton which I believe is scheduled for production in Spring 2007. Dual Clovertown is my next Mac for sure.
I'm aware of Tigerton, but I was told in another thread that it's not a true successor to Clovertown and could not possibly be used in a Mac Pro. That being the case, is Clovertown it until -- Harpertown?
I'm aware of Tigerton, but I was told in another thread that it's not a true successor to Clovertown and could not possibly be used in a Mac Pro. That being the case, is Clovertown it until -- Harpertown?
sebisworld
Mar 21, 05:23 AM
I think you guys should think about what's good for the customer, as well.
Thanks to DVD Jon, we can now watch DVD with VLC and don't have to buy a new DVD player for every different region code. Isn't that and advantage? Yes!
And thanks to him we can now buy songs of the iTMS and dow whatever we want with them. Think about it - before we had to pay for music with which we could do less than with the one we pirated. That doesn't make too much sense in my point of view.
We need something like Allofmp3 in the western world. Something that actually has an advantage over downloading the albums of P2P (something that can beat no DRM and high P2P bit rates)
Thanks to DVD Jon, we can now watch DVD with VLC and don't have to buy a new DVD player for every different region code. Isn't that and advantage? Yes!
And thanks to him we can now buy songs of the iTMS and dow whatever we want with them. Think about it - before we had to pay for music with which we could do less than with the one we pirated. That doesn't make too much sense in my point of view.
We need something like Allofmp3 in the western world. Something that actually has an advantage over downloading the albums of P2P (something that can beat no DRM and high P2P bit rates)
Rodimus Prime
Oct 7, 04:30 PM
I don't disagree with your general point about the app store, but Cydia has plenty of crap apps as well. One only needs to wade through all the calculator skins, winterboard themes, and soundboards to know this.
Yes, there are some great apps for jailbroken iPhones, but it is disingenuous to imply that Cydia doesn't have many of the same problems as the app store. But an open store is going to get you a lot of junk, so you have to take the good with the bad.
True it has its own list of crap apps but it is much more open. Apple current system is closed. We have rejection with no reasoning why it was rejected and on top of that 84k+ apps on the apps store are crap.
So both apple system and Jail break system are full of same percentage of crap but at least there is a better chance of finding great apps in the Jail broken world because you have both the apple side and the open side to work with.
Yes, there are some great apps for jailbroken iPhones, but it is disingenuous to imply that Cydia doesn't have many of the same problems as the app store. But an open store is going to get you a lot of junk, so you have to take the good with the bad.
True it has its own list of crap apps but it is much more open. Apple current system is closed. We have rejection with no reasoning why it was rejected and on top of that 84k+ apps on the apps store are crap.
So both apple system and Jail break system are full of same percentage of crap but at least there is a better chance of finding great apps in the Jail broken world because you have both the apple side and the open side to work with.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:10 AM
Compared to the alternative, it certainly seems to be.
[source: human history]
Compared to what alternative?
[source: human history]
Compared to what alternative?
srxtr
Apr 20, 06:56 PM
so glad you think stealing an artists work is a proper and moral thing to do, plz stay on your platform, the rest of us will take the high road and pay an enormous fee of .99 to 1.29 per song...geez
+1
+1
Eidorian
Oct 26, 11:18 PM
Multimedia, I was wondering if you could address the FSB issue being discussed by a few people here, namely how more and more cores using the same FSB per chip can push only so much data through that 1333 MHZ pipe, thereby making the FSB act as a bottleneck. Any thoughts?It honestly depends on if those processors are going to fully saturate the FSB. If the FSB has a high enough data transfer rate then it shouldn't matter much that the cross talk between processors is over the FSB and not onboard via shared cache.
Multimedia
Sep 26, 11:38 AM
I bet I could peg all 8 cores doing a 3D render...easily. Bring them I say. This may make me hold off on my render farm idea. -mark
Run 4 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 4 copies of Toast Simutaneously
Run 2 copies of Toast and 2 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Toast and 3 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Handbrake and 3 copies of Toast Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Toast and 2 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Handbrake and 2 copies of Toast Simultaneously
All of the above would easily and immediately HOSE the 8 Core Mac Pro NOW. I need to do all of the above a lot of the time.
I use Toast to encode and write EyeTV2 digital SD and HD Broadcast Recordings to DVD IMAGES (not DVD media) before crushing those images to excellent compact mp4 files with Handbrake. BOTH can use up to 3 cores on G5 Quads - perhaps 4 on Intel - EACH if they are allowed to run alone.
Run 4 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 4 copies of Toast Simutaneously
Run 2 copies of Toast and 2 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Toast and 3 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Handbrake and 3 copies of Toast Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Toast and 2 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Handbrake and 2 copies of Toast Simultaneously
All of the above would easily and immediately HOSE the 8 Core Mac Pro NOW. I need to do all of the above a lot of the time.
I use Toast to encode and write EyeTV2 digital SD and HD Broadcast Recordings to DVD IMAGES (not DVD media) before crushing those images to excellent compact mp4 files with Handbrake. BOTH can use up to 3 cores on G5 Quads - perhaps 4 on Intel - EACH if they are allowed to run alone.
Popeye206
Apr 9, 11:35 AM
I do think the market can sustain 4 companies, perhaps even especially the casual market which is significantly larger. I would challenge you to answer why you think the smaller top-end console market can sustain 2 large players, but the broader casual market could not?
Unless Apple pulls a rabbit out of it's hat with Gaming, I'd think that iOS games would be more geared towards families and multiplayer... but not at the same level as something like Halo on XBox, but more like the Nitendo Wii games.
Given this, I think the systems that need to worry is Playstation (they've been having their own issues) and Nitendo given iOS games could easily take on the Nitendo market.
However, what's to say that Nitendo couldn't port some more popular games to iOS? It would be a killer combo and would expand their revenue stream to what could be a huge competitor.
IMHO, I think Nitendo should be talking to Apple and make it happen.
Unless Apple pulls a rabbit out of it's hat with Gaming, I'd think that iOS games would be more geared towards families and multiplayer... but not at the same level as something like Halo on XBox, but more like the Nitendo Wii games.
Given this, I think the systems that need to worry is Playstation (they've been having their own issues) and Nitendo given iOS games could easily take on the Nitendo market.
However, what's to say that Nitendo couldn't port some more popular games to iOS? It would be a killer combo and would expand their revenue stream to what could be a huge competitor.
IMHO, I think Nitendo should be talking to Apple and make it happen.
-aggie-
May 4, 11:39 AM
If you Google "Mac Defender" you'll run across any number of sites that will tell you the same thing: Don't install it and remove it from your system. You don't need to be a MR forums reader to find that out. After all, the information about the threat didn't originate from this site, and neither did the solution.
WTF? MacRumors is not the source of all knowledge?? You're talking crazy, right?
WTF? MacRumors is not the source of all knowledge?? You're talking crazy, right?
ericinboston
Apr 28, 09:31 AM
Next quarter you'll see very, very different numbers. Over the next 3-5 years you'll see the decline of the entire PC market and a shift over to tablets and pad devices as they become more capable and powerful.
Very true.
Compare what you did on a personal computer in 1995 vs. today. I would say web-based activity is a very very high percentage of what people use a personal computer...since even 2005. Online banking, email, uploading/sharing photos, Youtube, chat, skype, research, maps & directions, etc.
It doesn't make a difference if you use a Mac or Dell or a Linux box...as long as there is a browser on the system, you can do all your work.
Sure, there is the occasional thick client (iTunes, MS Office, Photoshop) but those are ALL available on the Mac and PC environments.
Now tablets come along. They failed so many times before because of all the new operating systems they had and thick client re-compiles they had to do. No more. 90% of the stuff consumers are doing is web...so just slap Firefox on the thing and you're golden. Then for the 10% of stuff that isn't web-based, have the OS be attractive to app writers....and those 3 example apps above are being ported to the tablets.
Tablets are definitely the wave of the future of personal computing...but I will state that the desktop will be around for quite some time for the folks (like me) who although do a lot of web stuff, have a lot of thick client apps and/or need (non-need) to use a desktop vs. a tablet.
Very true.
Compare what you did on a personal computer in 1995 vs. today. I would say web-based activity is a very very high percentage of what people use a personal computer...since even 2005. Online banking, email, uploading/sharing photos, Youtube, chat, skype, research, maps & directions, etc.
It doesn't make a difference if you use a Mac or Dell or a Linux box...as long as there is a browser on the system, you can do all your work.
Sure, there is the occasional thick client (iTunes, MS Office, Photoshop) but those are ALL available on the Mac and PC environments.
Now tablets come along. They failed so many times before because of all the new operating systems they had and thick client re-compiles they had to do. No more. 90% of the stuff consumers are doing is web...so just slap Firefox on the thing and you're golden. Then for the 10% of stuff that isn't web-based, have the OS be attractive to app writers....and those 3 example apps above are being ported to the tablets.
Tablets are definitely the wave of the future of personal computing...but I will state that the desktop will be around for quite some time for the folks (like me) who although do a lot of web stuff, have a lot of thick client apps and/or need (non-need) to use a desktop vs. a tablet.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 14, 07:35 PM
And as long as humans are in charge of designing, building, and maintaining them, there will be errors.
munkery
May 2, 05:30 PM
so a very small percentage of the market will be using it (the better tech) then?
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I read somewhere that Chrome may drop it's own sandbox in favour of Webkit2 given that Chrome is based on Webkit.
Webkit2 will sandbox plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine (Javascript) from the UI frame and that sandbox will be the same regardless of the user account type running on the Mac, even root.
IE sandboxes tab processes from each other and the UI frame but it does not sandbox the plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine from the tab processes.
Also, the Windows sandbox is turned off or lessened if the user turns off UAC or lessens UAC restrictions. This effect of UAC on Windows sandbox also affects Chrome on Windows given that Chrome uses that technology to achieve it's sandbox in Windows. So, do not disable or reduce UAC in Windows!
You have to remember a browsers sandbox is based on the sandbox technology of the underlying OS. Windows sandbox is based on inherited permissions much like the older sandbox technology called Unix DAC that has always been implemented in the default user account in OS X. The newer sandbox in OS X, the TrustedBSD MAC framework, does not function via inherited permissions.
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I read somewhere that Chrome may drop it's own sandbox in favour of Webkit2 given that Chrome is based on Webkit.
Webkit2 will sandbox plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine (Javascript) from the UI frame and that sandbox will be the same regardless of the user account type running on the Mac, even root.
IE sandboxes tab processes from each other and the UI frame but it does not sandbox the plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine from the tab processes.
Also, the Windows sandbox is turned off or lessened if the user turns off UAC or lessens UAC restrictions. This effect of UAC on Windows sandbox also affects Chrome on Windows given that Chrome uses that technology to achieve it's sandbox in Windows. So, do not disable or reduce UAC in Windows!
You have to remember a browsers sandbox is based on the sandbox technology of the underlying OS. Windows sandbox is based on inherited permissions much like the older sandbox technology called Unix DAC that has always been implemented in the default user account in OS X. The newer sandbox in OS X, the TrustedBSD MAC framework, does not function via inherited permissions.
RickyB
Apr 16, 11:30 AM
Also, if you enable "show path bar" in Finder, you can see the entire path you're in, and easily jump around.
And you can also go up a level in the directory structure by pressing [Command] + [Up arrow].
There's a load of shortcut keys here:
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1343
And you can also go up a level in the directory structure by pressing [Command] + [Up arrow].
There's a load of shortcut keys here:
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1343
HiRez
Sep 26, 05:17 AM
My only hope is now that multi-core systems have gone mainstream that someone (cough -M$-cough) will make multi-processor aware apps "fashionable" and extend the trend.
The Demi-Gods may be able to back me up on this, but Apple's not been great on this front despite leading (well, NEXT) the front on main stream multi-processor systems.Well, since they started selling multi-processor PowerMacs, they've been quite good about it. Final Cut Pro, Motion, iTunes, and iMovie all use multiple-processors, as does anything that uses CoreAudio. I don't know about Aperture, but I'd bet it uses multithreading/multiprocessing extensively. Plus the most important app of all is quite good at utilizing multiple processors, OS X. I don't know about other Apple apps such as Pages, Keynote, iPhoto, and iWeb, but there's probably a limited amount of things they can efficiently multithread in those apps due to the nature of work being done.
Bottom line is that if you're not doing long-form processor-intensive stuff such as 2D/3D animation rendering, video encoding, mathematical/scientific analysis, running simulations, etc. then you probably won't get much benefit from more than two cores (you'll be better off with two cores running at faster clock speeds). But if you are, eight cores will be fantastic.
The Demi-Gods may be able to back me up on this, but Apple's not been great on this front despite leading (well, NEXT) the front on main stream multi-processor systems.Well, since they started selling multi-processor PowerMacs, they've been quite good about it. Final Cut Pro, Motion, iTunes, and iMovie all use multiple-processors, as does anything that uses CoreAudio. I don't know about Aperture, but I'd bet it uses multithreading/multiprocessing extensively. Plus the most important app of all is quite good at utilizing multiple processors, OS X. I don't know about other Apple apps such as Pages, Keynote, iPhoto, and iWeb, but there's probably a limited amount of things they can efficiently multithread in those apps due to the nature of work being done.
Bottom line is that if you're not doing long-form processor-intensive stuff such as 2D/3D animation rendering, video encoding, mathematical/scientific analysis, running simulations, etc. then you probably won't get much benefit from more than two cores (you'll be better off with two cores running at faster clock speeds). But if you are, eight cores will be fantastic.
AppliedVisual
Oct 30, 11:49 PM
I already have a bunch of Adaptec eSATA/USB2 SATA enclosures that say they only work as USB2 on Macs. But I wonder if they won't work on any eSATA PCIe card we can put into the Mac Pro. How expensive are those eSATA PCIe cards anyway?
I don't know why it wouldn't work... In fact, I'm pretty sure I've seen eSATA enclosures advertised as working with a Mac. I'll see if I can find one.
BTW I find USB2 HD hook ups to be far less problematic and just as fast or faster than FW hooks ups. Is that true?
I've had pretty much the same luck... Some USB2 devices struggle a bit due to the onboard USB2 chipset, but for the most part, they're equivalent to FW400 (with a max rate of 480Mbps) and USB2 handles traffic from multiple devices better than firewire. OTOH, lots of older Mac systems, especially those Powerbook G4s, struggled with USB2 and often exhibited poor performance. But overall, I think USB2 has a bad reputation that it didn't deserve to get stuck with. In my experience having owned quite a few USB2 storage devices, I find that poor performance is more the fault of the device maker than the interface itself as I've got some hard drives - like a couple of my external Maxtor units, that perform blazingly fast and in no way slower on USB2 than when connected via FW.
I don't know why it wouldn't work... In fact, I'm pretty sure I've seen eSATA enclosures advertised as working with a Mac. I'll see if I can find one.
BTW I find USB2 HD hook ups to be far less problematic and just as fast or faster than FW hooks ups. Is that true?
I've had pretty much the same luck... Some USB2 devices struggle a bit due to the onboard USB2 chipset, but for the most part, they're equivalent to FW400 (with a max rate of 480Mbps) and USB2 handles traffic from multiple devices better than firewire. OTOH, lots of older Mac systems, especially those Powerbook G4s, struggled with USB2 and often exhibited poor performance. But overall, I think USB2 has a bad reputation that it didn't deserve to get stuck with. In my experience having owned quite a few USB2 storage devices, I find that poor performance is more the fault of the device maker than the interface itself as I've got some hard drives - like a couple of my external Maxtor units, that perform blazingly fast and in no way slower on USB2 than when connected via FW.
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.
Xenious
Aug 29, 01:03 PM
Greenpeace ranks #1 in psycho environmentalist organizations... film at 11.
gospel9
Apr 9, 12:31 AM
Hmmm, swipe, swipe, swipe, next. Swipe, swipe, swipe, next.
Nah, gimme the Infinity Blade graphics but in a game that needs more than just flicking left or right.
Oh you have absolutely no idea how to play Infinity Blade. Sure you can win like that in the beginning... It is like saying a racing game is turn turn turn brake turn long brake turn turn next.
Nah, gimme the Infinity Blade graphics but in a game that needs more than just flicking left or right.
Oh you have absolutely no idea how to play Infinity Blade. Sure you can win like that in the beginning... It is like saying a racing game is turn turn turn brake turn long brake turn turn next.
JFreak
Jul 12, 05:08 AM
I think we have all been waiting for hte final piece in the puzzle: pro laptops - covered, consumer laptops - covered, consumer desktop - covered, pro desktops - waiting...
...not to mention: non-apple pro apps - waiting.
...not to mention: non-apple pro apps - waiting.
wnurse
Mar 19, 11:02 PM
No no, I don't think people get it.
If they put DRM on the track before you buy it, then everyone who buys that song will have the same song with the same DRM, which means that any computer can play it, as everyone has the same iTunes and a track with the same DRM.
Adding specific DRM on the fly isn't what Apple has to do, either. Your iTunes still has to know that it IS the computer that you can play a particular track from, and not just any computer.
No that is not true. If you had read my previous post to this post, you would have seen where i said that your copy of itms would have to send a key to the itms server. Each computer would send a unique key so the song cannot play on any other computer other than the one that sent the key. This is not technically challenging, not like building a rocket ship or anything. I could do it.
If they put DRM on the track before you buy it, then everyone who buys that song will have the same song with the same DRM, which means that any computer can play it, as everyone has the same iTunes and a track with the same DRM.
Adding specific DRM on the fly isn't what Apple has to do, either. Your iTunes still has to know that it IS the computer that you can play a particular track from, and not just any computer.
No that is not true. If you had read my previous post to this post, you would have seen where i said that your copy of itms would have to send a key to the itms server. Each computer would send a unique key so the song cannot play on any other computer other than the one that sent the key. This is not technically challenging, not like building a rocket ship or anything. I could do it.
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
Liquorpuki
Mar 14, 08:27 PM
I think part of the problem may have to do with the fact that the plants are designed by engineers. Engineers' focus is elegance: accomplishing the most in the most minimalist way. Nuclear power plants need much less minimalism and elegance than just about anything else humans can make, but costs and other limitations tend to guide the design toward what engineers are best at. Redundancy and over-building are desirable, I believe we end up with too much elegance instead.
No it's not. That would be architects, and only some of them. And maybe Steve Jobs, if you wanted to call him an engineer.
Engineering - everything is quantified down to tedium. Every single variable in a design has a reason for being a specific value.
I also have to ask, if not engineers, who would you rather have design an ECCS for a nuclear power plant? Who else would be qualified to design such a thing?
No it's not. That would be architects, and only some of them. And maybe Steve Jobs, if you wanted to call him an engineer.
Engineering - everything is quantified down to tedium. Every single variable in a design has a reason for being a specific value.
I also have to ask, if not engineers, who would you rather have design an ECCS for a nuclear power plant? Who else would be qualified to design such a thing?
SuperCachetes
Apr 23, 11:09 PM
I have personally thought through my beliefs extensively (likely more and more frequently than most of you have thought through your respective beliefs).
What a condescending statement. :rolleyes:
What a condescending statement. :rolleyes:
FreeState
Apr 15, 01:40 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWYqsaJk_U8
Well worth the watch. Im so glad they did this.
----------------------------------------------------------------
***Moderator Note: This thread is now associated with a front-page news story (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/15/apple-employees-contribute-to-it-gets-better-project/). Due to the potentially controversial nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.
Well worth the watch. Im so glad they did this.
----------------------------------------------------------------
***Moderator Note: This thread is now associated with a front-page news story (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/15/apple-employees-contribute-to-it-gets-better-project/). Due to the potentially controversial nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.
No comments:
Post a Comment