Several rumor sites have already said Apple is looking into starting a similar video service in a few years but that it will be a rental service aimed at being easier than a video rental store. Example: you pay two or three dollars and download a movie that can be watched a certain number of times or for a certain amount of days. If they were to offer a service where you purchased them the quality would have to be good enough that the file size would be prohibitively large.
All it will do is result in more boycotts of DRM crippled discs and consumer anger directed at the media companies. I really don't know how long its going to take before they realize this. Killing fair use is not the answer.
Please don't lump all environmentalists together in such a way.
It was not my intention to do so. By referring to the 'rabid' ones, I meant those people who say that suffering under an energy deficit would be better than felling one tree or killing one animal. I understand there are environmentalists who don't hold such extreme views. I just wish those that do would get a clue.
These rabid environmentalists are totally clueless about the enviro-friendliness of most energy technologies. It's not like someone is wanting to start an offshore oil operation or a huge pollutant producing coal factory. The reality is that the US is outpacing our current energy supplies, and we have to explore alternative methods to increase production. I would hardly consider a wind farm among the most harmful to the environment.
using bone-stock OS X 10.2.6 on pre-production single processor PPC 970 machines...
This statement casts doubt on the other claims of the article because it is simply not possible. A 970 Mac could not run stock 10.2.6 as it exists now because it doesn't include drivers for the 970, the new Hypertransport bus, or the new motherboard chipset. IBM stated that only minor changes would be necessary to operating system code for 970 support though, so my analysis is that there are two possibilities.
Either a. the OS they are running isn't stock 10.2.6 but a modded version that is being called the same thing
or b. there are no running 970 Macs as of yet so they aren't running any OS.
These Unix patent/license holder companies' lawsuits are really getting annoying. Unix is about open standards, it seems to me that suing someone who makes a Unix product to get a bucketload of license money is just an attempt to reshape the Unix world into the same pattern as Microsoft's nightmarish licensing model.
It seems to me that what the IEEE decided to do was to label the spec with the actual throughput speed as opposed to the raw one. That makes sense and I don't know why it wasn't done with b. But apparantly some people took this to mean the raw speed had been reduced from 54 to 20 which would have meant a sizeable reduction in actual speed.
I would have thought the iTMS would have made it clear by now what people want in a music service. With a very small user base in a very short time, Apple has greatly eclipsed all the other services where you rent your music. Now MS thinks that rehashing Pressplay's model with probably even more restrictions is going to defeat Apple! WTF? Personally, I can't say I'm upset. Their service will end up going in the toilet and the Windows iTMS will blow them away. It will be fun to watch.
My bad. I hadn't checked it in a while. Looks like they fixed that. Horrible Mac performance was a problem when RC5-72 first came out and that was the reason the tech support gave me.
Although this isn't piracy, it opens the door to other stuff that could be. Someone has already come out with a program called iTunesDL that can download songs from iTunes shares.
If you have Quicktime Pro or Peak or other audio software there is a much better option. Open the AAC file and save it to aiff (no need for audio hijack). Then take that file and reimport as high bitrate mp3 in iTunes. I did that and was not able to notice much distinction in quality.
I disagree. I think private enterprise will play an important role. You are correct in saying that right now it is too expensive and not worth the risk for them. What I am saying is that only private industry involvement is going to change that. The gov will continue to spend billions on huge programs that it believes are beneficial. NASA has never been that concerned with the bottom line or cost minimization. It spends what is necessary for something to succeed. But with private businesses, cost will have to be the primary focus. I think we will see companies get involved and invent cheaper and more effective ways to commercialize space travel, simply because it will be a prerequisite for almost any private venture.
There are lots of companies planning the future of space. Space Island Group plans to construct several space stations before the end of the decade. Space Adventures is going to offer flights into space for $98,000 a person. And I've seen several proposals to plan the mining of Helium-3 from the moon that could serve as a long term power source for earth. It's good to see the private sector getting involved here, we definitely need it to improve the cost and feasibility of long term projects. We just aren't going to get it from govt. funding that is capable of spending $600 for a toilet seat.
Slashdot Mirror
these are the actual specs. If so, Powermac sales will most definitely climb out of their slump.
Several rumor sites have already said Apple is looking into starting a similar video service in a few years but that it will be a rental service aimed at being easier than a video rental store. Example: you pay two or three dollars and download a movie that can be watched a certain number of times or for a certain amount of days. If they were to offer a service where you purchased them the quality would have to be good enough that the file size would be prohibitively large.
All it will do is result in more boycotts of DRM crippled discs and consumer anger directed at the media companies. I really don't know how long its going to take before they realize this. Killing fair use is not the answer.
or does anyone else think that /. is turning into an SCO soap opera. I for one hope they die soon.
Please don't lump all environmentalists together in such a way.
It was not my intention to do so. By referring to the 'rabid' ones, I meant those people who say that suffering under an energy deficit would be better than felling one tree or killing one animal. I understand there are environmentalists who don't hold such extreme views. I just wish those that do would get a clue.
These rabid environmentalists are totally clueless about the enviro-friendliness of most energy technologies. It's not like someone is wanting to start an offshore oil operation or a huge pollutant producing coal factory. The reality is that the US is outpacing our current energy supplies, and we have to explore alternative methods to increase production. I would hardly consider a wind farm among the most harmful to the environment.
or does that picture remind you of one of the possible unpleseant results of nausea?
using bone-stock OS X 10.2.6 on pre-production single processor PPC 970 machines...
This statement casts doubt on the other claims of the article because it is simply not possible. A 970 Mac could not run stock 10.2.6 as it exists now because it doesn't include drivers for the 970, the new Hypertransport bus, or the new motherboard chipset. IBM stated that only minor changes would be necessary to operating system code for 970 support though, so my analysis is that there are two possibilities.
Either a. the OS they are running isn't stock 10.2.6 but a modded version that is being called the same thing
or b. there are no running 970 Macs as of yet so they aren't running any OS.
You're right, I should have said Unix is supposed to be about open standards.
These Unix patent/license holder companies' lawsuits are really getting annoying. Unix is about open standards, it seems to me that suing someone who makes a Unix product to get a bucketload of license money is just an attempt to reshape the Unix world into the same pattern as Microsoft's nightmarish licensing model.
Apple appears to have removed the limiter thing that reduced the volume of the music when it went too high. Sounds much better in 4.0.1.
It seems to me that what the IEEE decided to do was to label the spec with the actual throughput speed as opposed to the raw one. That makes sense and I don't know why it wasn't done with b. But apparantly some people took this to mean the raw speed had been reduced from 54 to 20 which would have meant a sizeable reduction in actual speed.
I would have thought the iTMS would have made it clear by now what people want in a music service. With a very small user base in a very short time, Apple has greatly eclipsed all the other services where you rent your music. Now MS thinks that rehashing Pressplay's model with probably even more restrictions is going to defeat Apple! WTF? Personally, I can't say I'm upset. Their service will end up going in the toilet and the Windows iTMS will blow them away. It will be fun to watch.
Same story was posted a month or two ago.
My bad. I hadn't checked it in a while. Looks like they fixed that. Horrible Mac performance was a problem when RC5-72 first came out and that was the reason the tech support gave me.
This guy posts this same BS in just about every Apple story. One of the reasons I started browsing at +1.
You've not been looking at the distributed.net results, have you?
With RC5-64 that was true. Unfortunately for RC5-72, no one has written an optimized Mac core yet so the PC versions are way faster.
Especially when you are paying for it.
Although this isn't piracy, it opens the door to other stuff that could be. Someone has already come out with a program called iTunesDL that can download songs from iTunes shares.
LOL, AACs and almost all MP3s are 44.1.
If you have Quicktime Pro or Peak or other audio software there is a much better option. Open the AAC file and save it to aiff (no need for audio hijack). Then take that file and reimport as high bitrate mp3 in iTunes. I did that and was not able to notice much distinction in quality.
If anyone cant get it from apple, iTunes 4 is available here:
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gtg739g/itunes4.d m g
I disagree. I think private enterprise will play an important role. You are correct in saying that right now it is too expensive and not worth the risk for them. What I am saying is that only private industry involvement is going to change that. The gov will continue to spend billions on huge programs that it believes are beneficial. NASA has never been that concerned with the bottom line or cost minimization. It spends what is necessary for something to succeed. But with private businesses, cost will have to be the primary focus. I think we will see companies get involved and invent cheaper and more effective ways to commercialize space travel, simply because it will be a prerequisite for almost any private venture.
Hmm, I wouldn't think many people developing Java apps would still be on dialup.
There are lots of companies planning the future of space. Space Island Group plans to construct several space stations before the end of the decade. Space Adventures is going to offer flights into space for $98,000 a person. And I've seen several proposals to plan the mining of Helium-3 from the moon that could serve as a long term power source for earth. It's good to see the private sector getting involved here, we definitely need it to improve the cost and feasibility of long term projects. We just aren't going to get it from govt. funding that is capable of spending $600 for a toilet seat.