Anime is just a medium, like TV or commercials or infomercials or live action movies or print or comic.
Each medium has their own history and culture, so it would stand to reason that anime too has its own subculture. It is this subculture that most fans are attracted to, the expectations built up from watching previous anime is carried over when watching new anime.
Same as any other genre: American music, Marvel comics, Car commercials.
And of course, anime itself can be divided into smaller genres, just like American Music, Marvel Comics, or Car commercials.
You mean like the Apple 20" which nets you 1680x1050 or the 23" which nets you 1920x1200 resolutions?
The equivalent 4:3 display would be 1680x1260 or 1920x1440.
Anyway, which 'current displays' have the same horizontal resolutions? The Planar 20" LCD is 1600x1200 for $1,306, just a little bit more expensive than the 20" Apple LCD. I assume this is what you mean, where Apple added 80 more width and cut off 150 in the height?
The 23" LCDs at Dell, hmm, well darn, there *aren't* any available at any size that do 1920 except Sony's 23" widescreen: 1920x1200 at $2,709, vs Apple's 1920x1200 at $1,999.
Anyway, I suppose you're free to buy a 20" LCD with more height, but actually I think I appreciate the additional 1" width and 2" loss in height, as a form factor, and I haven't seen any LCD at 1920x1440... though I suppose IBM's ultra high res 22" screens may qualify, though they're really, really, expensive.
Granted, the 'professional' looking bit is subjective, but the quality out of those two programs is considerably higher than PowerPoint or Front Page Express (having used those progrems). Arguably the quality and character of the movies those programs can create is dictated more by the footage and the skill of the user, but it's still very, very, good, for the price (less than $3k)
Re:Sell one for less and pocket the difference
on
Hacking the Streamium
·
· Score: 1
So I need an existing sound system to use the slimp3?
In which case, the previous poster needs to build a $220 competitor and pocket the difference:D
Sell one for less and pocket the difference
on
Hacking the Streamium
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It costs you $310?
Good, sell one to me for $320, and you can keep the difference.
C|Net tells me I can get one for $350. Heck, sell it to me for $330, I'm feeling generous.
But really, isn't the issue one of price/performance on the technology curve for steel lower than the price/performance on the technology curve for plastic?
We only really want to switch to plastic when one of three things changes:
Price goes way down Performance goes way up Technology improves and price/performance jumps onto an entirely new curve.
So when we can manufacture better frames, analagous to the way how skyscrapers came into existence because load bearing stone was replaced with steel, improvements in technology can occur that replace the load bearing steel shell with an internal load bearing skeleton, relegating the skin to window dressing (like skyscrapers or human beings).
Or when plastics become advanced enough that they are superior to steel as a load bearing structure (yeah, tough to imagine, but that's what imagination is for, no?)
Or when manufacturing for advanced plastics becomes low enough that it's more advantageous to use plastics for the shell and use a reinforced steel inner body for the load (without changes in steel technology)...
It's happened before: Buildings used to be made of stone, with the stone acting as a load bearing as well as exterior material. Then we got concrete to replace that, allowing us to build higher and thinner. Then we shifted the load bearing capacity to interior steel members, allowing us to use glass thin outer shells and to build ever higher into the skyscraper range.
So I assume it will happen in cars. Something revolutionary will occur in steel tech, which will be marginally more expensive than traditional steel, but because you'll need less of it for the same function, you get advantages when you make a airier steel frame underbody, akin to a skeletal system, with plastic or composite shell sitting atop it for aesthetic and weight reduction reasons. Don't forget that fuel efficiency and power output are related to weight, too, and that people who want more performance or more fuel efficiency want lighter cars.
So cars will continue to get lighter, and plastics and other technologies will aid that, because as weight goes down, manufacturing goes down (just less stuff in general), power goes up, fuel efficiency goes up, and margin goes up, because you still charge the same but you pay less in materials.
It's about seeing enough of the big picture too see a *relationship* between you and Apple. A big enough picture where you can see that what is good for Apple is good for you, and *ultimately* that Apple reciprocates and sees what is good for you is good for them.
If that doesn't exist, then Apple never can see any benefit to helping you at all, because they just want to help themselves right? Wrong, of course. By helping you they increase sales and usage and commitment (or something like that). That helps them.
So likewise, you want whats good for Apple because (hopefully) there exists a relationship in which you benefit from Apple getting some benefits.
Past examples include: Quicktime, which Microsoft and others eventually used as the template for a media framework (Quicktime was just first) Mac OS, which pioneered things like color desktops and UIs in a world of CLI and low res low fidelty desktops. This became mass market with the introduction of Win 95 USB, if only because iMacs could only use USB peripherals, giving USB developers a market Firewire, if only because Macs use it for their high speed interface for iPods and DV cameras, as well as hard drives and stuff. How does this help you? Well, if you need a high speed serial interface, of course.
Then there's 802.11b, Rendevous, widespread adoption of LCDs, DVD-R, Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio, iMovie, etc.
The point? Apple makes a profit making tools and functionality available that was inaccessable, expensive, or nonexistant before. That *is* benefit to you, if you want a $1800 DVD or movie studio, or a $3800 pro quality DVD, audio, or movie studio. Sure, you have to pay for it, but that's what keeps Apple alive and gives you your product.
So yes, you want whats good for Apple because there's a symbiotic (or for some, parasitic) relationhip. If Apple dies, than you (we) need someone else to come along to do this, even if it's Microsoft or your next door neighbor. Until, of course, it becomes a commodity.
Dunno if this is clear. Apple produces A, B, and C. You only care about B, but that is enough because the existence of B gives you a benefit. So already Apple cares about you, because by providing B they have your reliance upon them. Perhaps B+ is what you really need, so you want what is good for Apple so that B+ comes out. And at the end, both sides win.
Life, and certainly this marketplace, is *not* a zero sum game. Both sides can win.
but in the article, the Alienware was 2-3x faster than the 800MHz G4 on the Bibble software. Perhaps you don't have an 800MHz G4, perhaps it's only 400MHz (I don't think they were ever any slower), which means that your Saeger is possibly 4-6x faster than the slowest G4 I can imagine.
And in the previous article, it was shown that Bibble's software was about the same speed as the Nikon software, on the Alienware, and about twice as fast on the Mac, though the PC was still faster.
However, with the *new* MacBibble, the process is 10x faster than the native software, which means that if you have a 400MHz G4, MacBibble should be exactly the same speed as Bibble on your Alienware... and if you have anything faster, like 500MHz, or 550MHz, or 800MHz, or 867MHz, or whatever, your Mac (at least for RAW conversion), is now faster than your PC.
Why would you want to spend $4k when your current Mac might very well be faster than your current PC? What speed is your Mac, anyhow?
The analogy holds if Apple prevents resellers from installing or bundling Opera with their Macs, which Apple is probably not going to do.
Microsoft bundling IE is fine. Apple bundling Safari is fine.
Microsoft integrating IE is fine. Apple integrating Safari is fine.
Microsoft using it's Windows monopoly to control browsers is bad. Apple using it's desktop monopoly to control browsers is bad.
To expand: Microsoft manipulating licensing agreements and fees to prevent OEMs from bundling Netscape or making Netscape the default is bad. Microsoft using mshtml in Outlook, Outlook Express, Explorer, Internet Explorer, is fine, but if they used their marketing muscle to prevent bundling/packaging of other software is bad.
In Apple's case, this is *plain* competition. IE is the default. Netscape/Mozilla is the popular alternative. Apple releases a competitive browser. Opera decides not to compete, Opera's loss.
And why do you think they would experiment with ants in lunar regolith or martian soil without first discovering how ants react to zero g in the first place? Baby steps, right?
This is *not* useless. This is *not* uninteresting.
Ant colonies in space are far from worthless.
This just proved that insect based terraforming engines would be possible, whether through mechanical, bio-mechanical, engineered, or just selectively bred.
Not only that, but that ants, and perhaps other insects, do better in low g then in high g; meaning also that they represent a useful mechanical alternative to wheels and other locomotion devices. It also probably means, within unknown constraints due to blood flow, that ants could probably become much larger in space and still function.
None of this is useless; the only reason it is useless is because you, the beholder, haven't the intelligence, creativity, or capbability to put *information* to use.
In your position I see many possibilities. You just see a waste.
Imagine ants 1' across used to terraform asteroids and planetoids! Partner them up with power sources, plants that create oxygen, and you've got a self limiting factory. As soon as the power dies, the oxygen goes, and the ants stop. But the end result is the possibility of miles of usable tunnels. And why 1'? Why not 2'? Or 4'? What's the limits of an ant's heart in zero g?
Of course we don't know. Does that make an experiment of breeding giant ants worthless?
Not at all! It just makes it one more thing we don't know that, if more people like you were in charge, we would *never* know.
This just proved that insect based terraforming engines would be possible, whether through mechanical, bio-mechanical, engineered, or just selectively bred.
Not only that, but that ants, and perhaps other insects, do better in low g then in high g; meaning also that they represent a useful mechanical alternative to wheels and other locomotion devices. It also probably means, within unknown constraints due to blood flow, that ants could probably become much larger in space and still function.
None of this is useless; the only reason it is useless is because you, the beholder, haven't the intelligence, creativity, or capbability to put *information* to use.
If I paid for my music, I would probably share it with my friends... possibly, but I wouldn't make it available to the masses because then it would feel like, rather than stealing from Sony or something, like stealing from me.
Of course, my friends who borrow these musics might not feel like this, but I have to expect my friends would feel similarly and share their music with me, and wouldn't be sharing their bought music with the world, so they wouldn't share my bought music either.
So you're saying Freetype *does* use supersampling, and that even with supersampling, hinting visibly improves (what, aesthetics? readability?) the rendering of truetype fonts?
Yet... what is the gain/profit? Will they see an income stream for this?
The (disputable) king of fonts platform, the Mac, *does* have an income stream connected to fonts. There is the much established and entrenched desktop publishing and print prepress industry, as born on and still alive on Macs.
So, would you spend a year designing a handful of fonts if you weren't going to get paid for it? I'm sure you would, but you haven't. Well, if not you, why RedHat or IBM?
Um... now you have me wondering. Does Apple use hinting at all in OS X? Given the way it does antialiasing (supersampling, grayscale, and subpixel addressing), it would seem hinting may be minimal, if used at all.
Just speculation, but hinting was an artefact of lower resolutions. I've got the zoom option turned on on OS X, and it appears to me that none of my fonts are single pixel width in stroke, more often than not being two pixels wide per stroke, though the second pixel may be a shade of gray rather than a solid black. In any case, I suppose that is further argument for your case, that hinting is nigh worthless and Apple could/should give it away to the Open Source folk?
I dunno if I would paint it quite so simplistically as you have, my anonymous friend.
After all, there are a plethora of web browsers, audio players, IM programs, and text editing programs that Apple doesn't care a whit about squashing. Apple is very selective about it's targets, in regards to political maneuvering, so I suppose you too should be careful and selective about your arguments?
iCommune wasn't open source Too bad I can't find out more about the iTunes API; all I can find is the iTunes Visual Plugins sdk Too bad this wasn't implemented as a Quicktime/Broadcaster kind of thing Too bad Apple didn't like this; For legal reasons? I suspect it's either for that, or because they're gonna unveil something similar for iTunes.
Remember their eMacs+SuperDrive upgrade fiasco? They squashed someone else who had done that because just a month later they released a similar product. In this case I wouldn't be surprised if iTunes 3.1 was released with iLife that had Renedevous enabled broadcasting!
The human body cannot process macronutrients in this manner.
Now, if you've got a store, a pump, and a catheter to feed directly into the vascular system, you can pump some sort of saline-sugar solution, the way you feed patients who can't eat.
You mean the folks with camcorders and kids and scrapbooks and home movies and DVD players?
The ones who will film the baby's first step, or the violin recitals, or the choir performance on Christmas?
Who will make videos out of trips to the Bahamas, when they go skiing in Colorado, and visit the temples of Japan?
Who will then make 10 DVD-Rs of each of these events and spread them, like spam, to their next of kin?
And then put up accompanying photo albums online, with short writeups, and then send them via email, like spam, to their co-workers, best friends, and family?
While a DVD may only be on the order of gigabytes, the raw video used to make that DVD is going to be on the order of hundreds of gigabytes, and what with Apple's push for iLife (iMovie3, iDVD3), I don't think there's any problems at all with sucking up 200gb in making a home movie masterpiece.
Now imagine when Apple releases the home consumer version of Shake (for compositing and SFX) or Logic Audio (for home music composing), and it's easy to imagine the need for more storage. The movies you make, the raw footage, the intermediate files, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Entertainment?
The same thing you see in every other media.
Anime is just a medium, like TV or commercials or infomercials or live action movies or print or comic.
Each medium has their own history and culture, so it would stand to reason that anime too has its own subculture. It is this subculture that most fans are attracted to, the expectations built up from watching previous anime is carried over when watching new anime.
Same as any other genre: American music, Marvel comics, Car commercials.
And of course, anime itself can be divided into smaller genres, just like American Music, Marvel Comics, or Car commercials.
You mean like the Apple 20" which nets you 1680x1050 or the 23" which nets you 1920x1200 resolutions?
The equivalent 4:3 display would be 1680x1260 or 1920x1440.
Anyway, which 'current displays' have the same horizontal resolutions? The Planar 20" LCD is 1600x1200 for $1,306, just a little bit more expensive than the 20" Apple LCD. I assume this is what you mean, where Apple added 80 more width and cut off 150 in the height?
The 23" LCDs at Dell, hmm, well darn, there *aren't* any available at any size that do 1920 except Sony's 23" widescreen: 1920x1200 at $2,709, vs Apple's 1920x1200 at $1,999.
Anyway, I suppose you're free to buy a 20" LCD with more height, but actually I think I appreciate the additional 1" width and 2" loss in height, as a form factor, and I haven't seen any LCD at 1920x1440... though I suppose IBM's ultra high res 22" screens may qualify, though they're really, really, expensive.
Given the battery life of an iBook, adding a fuel cell to an iBook probably means you could extract 8 or 9 hours.
Don't tell me that wouldn't be convenient, with a recharge being as simple as swapping methanol cartridges.
Granted, the 'professional' looking bit is subjective, but the quality out of those two programs is considerably higher than PowerPoint or Front Page Express (having used those progrems). Arguably the quality and character of the movies those programs can create is dictated more by the footage and the skill of the user, but it's still very, very, good, for the price (less than $3k)
So I need an existing sound system to use the slimp3?
:D
In which case, the previous poster needs to build a $220 competitor and pocket the difference
It costs you $310?
Good, sell one to me for $320, and you can keep the difference.
C|Net tells me I can get one for $350. Heck, sell it to me for $330, I'm feeling generous.
Long battery life, decent performance, all the features, small, lightweight, more than 800x600
Someplace like, say, http://www.powermax.com or something.
But really, isn't the issue one of price/performance on the technology curve for steel lower than the price/performance on the technology curve for plastic?
We only really want to switch to plastic when one of three things changes:
Price goes way down
Performance goes way up
Technology improves and price/performance jumps onto an entirely new curve.
So when we can manufacture better frames, analagous to the way how skyscrapers came into existence because load bearing stone was replaced with steel, improvements in technology can occur that replace the load bearing steel shell with an internal load bearing skeleton, relegating the skin to window dressing (like skyscrapers or human beings).
Or when plastics become advanced enough that they are superior to steel as a load bearing structure (yeah, tough to imagine, but that's what imagination is for, no?)
Or when manufacturing for advanced plastics becomes low enough that it's more advantageous to use plastics for the shell and use a reinforced steel inner body for the load (without changes in steel technology)...
It's happened before: Buildings used to be made of stone, with the stone acting as a load bearing as well as exterior material. Then we got concrete to replace that, allowing us to build higher and thinner. Then we shifted the load bearing capacity to interior steel members, allowing us to use glass thin outer shells and to build ever higher into the skyscraper range.
So I assume it will happen in cars. Something revolutionary will occur in steel tech, which will be marginally more expensive than traditional steel, but because you'll need less of it for the same function, you get advantages when you make a airier steel frame underbody, akin to a skeletal system, with plastic or composite shell sitting atop it for aesthetic and weight reduction reasons. Don't forget that fuel efficiency and power output are related to weight, too, and that people who want more performance or more fuel efficiency want lighter cars.
So cars will continue to get lighter, and plastics and other technologies will aid that, because as weight goes down, manufacturing goes down (just less stuff in general), power goes up, fuel efficiency goes up, and margin goes up, because you still charge the same but you pay less in materials.
No it isn't silly.
It's about seeing enough of the big picture too see a *relationship* between you and Apple. A big enough picture where you can see that what is good for Apple is good for you, and *ultimately* that Apple reciprocates and sees what is good for you is good for them.
If that doesn't exist, then Apple never can see any benefit to helping you at all, because they just want to help themselves right? Wrong, of course. By helping you they increase sales and usage and commitment (or something like that). That helps them.
So likewise, you want whats good for Apple because (hopefully) there exists a relationship in which you benefit from Apple getting some benefits.
Past examples include:
Quicktime, which Microsoft and others eventually used as the template for a media framework (Quicktime was just first)
Mac OS, which pioneered things like color desktops and UIs in a world of CLI and low res low fidelty desktops. This became mass market with the introduction of Win 95
USB, if only because iMacs could only use USB peripherals, giving USB developers a market
Firewire, if only because Macs use it for their high speed interface for iPods and DV cameras, as well as hard drives and stuff. How does this help you? Well, if you need a high speed serial interface, of course.
Then there's 802.11b, Rendevous, widespread adoption of LCDs, DVD-R, Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio, iMovie, etc.
The point? Apple makes a profit making tools and functionality available that was inaccessable, expensive, or nonexistant before. That *is* benefit to you, if you want a $1800 DVD or movie studio, or a $3800 pro quality DVD, audio, or movie studio. Sure, you have to pay for it, but that's what keeps Apple alive and gives you your product.
So yes, you want whats good for Apple because there's a symbiotic (or for some, parasitic) relationhip. If Apple dies, than you (we) need someone else to come along to do this, even if it's Microsoft or your next door neighbor. Until, of course, it becomes a commodity.
Dunno if this is clear. Apple produces A, B, and C. You only care about B, but that is enough because the existence of B gives you a benefit. So already Apple cares about you, because by providing B they have your reliance upon them. Perhaps B+ is what you really need, so you want what is good for Apple so that B+ comes out. And at the end, both sides win.
Life, and certainly this marketplace, is *not* a zero sum game. Both sides can win.
Correct me if I'm wrong...
but in the article, the Alienware was 2-3x faster than the 800MHz G4 on the Bibble software. Perhaps you don't have an 800MHz G4, perhaps it's only 400MHz (I don't think they were ever any slower), which means that your Saeger is possibly 4-6x faster than the slowest G4 I can imagine.
And in the previous article, it was shown that Bibble's software was about the same speed as the Nikon software, on the Alienware, and about twice as fast on the Mac, though the PC was still faster.
However, with the *new* MacBibble, the process is 10x faster than the native software, which means that if you have a 400MHz G4, MacBibble should be exactly the same speed as Bibble on your Alienware... and if you have anything faster, like 500MHz, or 550MHz, or 800MHz, or 867MHz, or whatever, your Mac (at least for RAW conversion), is now faster than your PC.
Why would you want to spend $4k when your current Mac might very well be faster than your current PC? What speed is your Mac, anyhow?
The analogy holds if Apple prevents resellers from installing or bundling Opera with their Macs, which Apple is probably not going to do.
Microsoft bundling IE is fine.
Apple bundling Safari is fine.
Microsoft integrating IE is fine.
Apple integrating Safari is fine.
Microsoft using it's Windows monopoly to control browsers is bad.
Apple using it's desktop monopoly to control browsers is bad.
To expand: Microsoft manipulating licensing agreements and fees to prevent OEMs from bundling Netscape or making Netscape the default is bad. Microsoft using mshtml in Outlook, Outlook Express, Explorer, Internet Explorer, is fine, but if they used their marketing muscle to prevent bundling/packaging of other software is bad.
In Apple's case, this is *plain* competition. IE is the default. Netscape/Mozilla is the popular alternative. Apple releases a competitive browser. Opera decides not to compete, Opera's loss.
He was talking about a GeForce FX
Yeah, silly, considering he doesn't have one... but then again, neither do you!
All he said was he bet that it would be like spitting on a stove, which is reasonable since his statement clearly indicates he is speculating.
And why do you think they would experiment with ants in lunar regolith or martian soil without first discovering how ants react to zero g in the first place? Baby steps, right?
This is *not* useless. This is *not* uninteresting.
Ant colonies in space are far from worthless.
This just proved that insect based terraforming engines would be possible, whether through mechanical, bio-mechanical, engineered, or just selectively bred.
Not only that, but that ants, and perhaps other insects, do better in low g then in high g; meaning also that they represent a useful mechanical alternative to wheels and other locomotion devices. It also probably means, within unknown constraints due to blood flow, that ants could probably become much larger in space and still function.
None of this is useless; the only reason it is useless is because you, the beholder, haven't the intelligence, creativity, or capbability to put *information* to use.
In your position I see many possibilities. You just see a waste.
Imagine ants 1' across used to terraform asteroids and planetoids! Partner them up with power sources, plants that create oxygen, and you've got a self limiting factory. As soon as the power dies, the oxygen goes, and the ants stop. But the end result is the possibility of miles of usable tunnels. And why 1'? Why not 2'? Or 4'? What's the limits of an ant's heart in zero g?
Of course we don't know. Does that make an experiment of breeding giant ants worthless?
Not at all! It just makes it one more thing we don't know that, if more people like you were in charge, we would *never* know.
Ant colonies in space are far from worthless.
This just proved that insect based terraforming engines would be possible, whether through mechanical, bio-mechanical, engineered, or just selectively bred.
Not only that, but that ants, and perhaps other insects, do better in low g then in high g; meaning also that they represent a useful mechanical alternative to wheels and other locomotion devices. It also probably means, within unknown constraints due to blood flow, that ants could probably become much larger in space and still function.
None of this is useless; the only reason it is useless is because you, the beholder, haven't the intelligence, creativity, or capbability to put *information* to use.
If I paid for my music, I would probably share it with my friends... possibly, but I wouldn't make it available to the masses because then it would feel like, rather than stealing from Sony or something, like stealing from me.
Of course, my friends who borrow these musics might not feel like this, but I have to expect my friends would feel similarly and share their music with me, and wouldn't be sharing their bought music with the world, so they wouldn't share my bought music either.
That's just how I see it though.
So you're saying Freetype *does* use supersampling, and that even with supersampling, hinting visibly improves (what, aesthetics? readability?) the rendering of truetype fonts?
Yet... what is the gain/profit? Will they see an income stream for this?
The (disputable) king of fonts platform, the Mac, *does* have an income stream connected to fonts. There is the much established and entrenched desktop publishing and print prepress industry, as born on and still alive on Macs.
So, would you spend a year designing a handful of fonts if you weren't going to get paid for it? I'm sure you would, but you haven't. Well, if not you, why RedHat or IBM?
Um... now you have me wondering. Does Apple use hinting at all in OS X? Given the way it does antialiasing (supersampling, grayscale, and subpixel addressing), it would seem hinting may be minimal, if used at all.
Just speculation, but hinting was an artefact of lower resolutions. I've got the zoom option turned on on OS X, and it appears to me that none of my fonts are single pixel width in stroke, more often than not being two pixels wide per stroke, though the second pixel may be a shade of gray rather than a solid black. In any case, I suppose that is further argument for your case, that hinting is nigh worthless and Apple could/should give it away to the Open Source folk?
How can we tell if it's a problem with the font or the rendering engine, btw?
I note, for example, that there is scant antialiasing on the screenshot, even though subpixel addressing seemed to be present...
I dunno if I would paint it quite so simplistically as you have, my anonymous friend.
After all, there are a plethora of web browsers, audio players, IM programs, and text editing programs that Apple doesn't care a whit about squashing. Apple is very selective about it's targets, in regards to political maneuvering, so I suppose you too should be careful and selective about your arguments?
iCommune wasn't open source
Too bad I can't find out more about the iTunes API; all I can find is the iTunes Visual Plugins sdk
Too bad this wasn't implemented as a Quicktime/Broadcaster kind of thing
Too bad Apple didn't like this; For legal reasons? I suspect it's either for that, or because they're gonna unveil something similar for iTunes.
Remember their eMacs+SuperDrive upgrade fiasco? They squashed someone else who had done that because just a month later they released a similar product. In this case I wouldn't be surprised if iTunes 3.1 was released with iLife that had Renedevous enabled broadcasting!
How about point to point wireless, due to phased array antennas?
There are going to be a few out on the market this very year for wifi!
The human body cannot process macronutrients in this manner.
Now, if you've got a store, a pump, and a catheter to feed directly into the vascular system, you can pump some sort of saline-sugar solution, the way you feed patients who can't eat.
You mean the folks with camcorders and kids and scrapbooks and home movies and DVD players?
:)
The ones who will film the baby's first step, or the violin recitals, or the choir performance on Christmas?
Who will make videos out of trips to the Bahamas, when they go skiing in Colorado, and visit the temples of Japan?
Who will then make 10 DVD-Rs of each of these events and spread them, like spam, to their next of kin?
And then put up accompanying photo albums online, with short writeups, and then send them via email, like spam, to their co-workers, best friends, and family?
Apple is betting on this market, at least
While a DVD may only be on the order of gigabytes, the raw video used to make that DVD is going to be on the order of hundreds of gigabytes, and what with Apple's push for iLife (iMovie3, iDVD3), I don't think there's any problems at all with sucking up 200gb in making a home movie masterpiece.
Now imagine when Apple releases the home consumer version of Shake (for compositing and SFX) or Logic Audio (for home music composing), and it's easy to imagine the need for more storage. The movies you make, the raw footage, the intermediate files, etc.