Actually -- I'm quite informed. I have en eyeTV connected to my Mac. What it isn't, however, is a VIDEO CARD. It's a tuner connected via USB.
My response was that there are no Tuner CARDS (as in video cards) for the Mac that you would be replacing your old video card with. After all, the whole discussion has been on how Mac needs a video card slot.
yeah, the first thing someone wants to do is pull apart their Psystar and replace the fan. It is a sign of cheap engineering -- don't expect the other parts to be any better in quality.
But if you're happy doing that -- why not just build your own hackintosh?
Unless you're a hardcore GAMER, you're not changing out your video card. In fact, I know of no one that has replaced their video card (unless it specifically died on them) after their initial purchase -- but I don't hang around hardcore gamers.
But if you're a hardcore gamer, you're going to find other reasons not to use the Mac.
What a separate graphics card does guarantee is a larger form factor (and in some cases significantly larger) and more cost (along with the complains of customers who don't care about video card options and don't want to pay extra for it).
I'm not looking at this from a Mac fanatic standpoint, but from an actual user's point of view. You seem to think that EVERYONE wants to swap out their video cards every few months -- but I hardly even saw that in the Windows world. I'm sure there are plenty of folks that do it (even though that might still make a small niche market). But MOST people aren't changing out video cards. In fact, MOST people don't change anything in the PC they order from Dell or HP. Whatever they bought on day one is what they continue using.
And if you're looking for TV tuner options, you're going to be limited to a limited # of channels due to the satellite/cable companies. You either need a box or cablecard (which only works on a couple devices and sucks in general).
Mind you, I do wish the cable/satellite companies would do something that actually benefited their customers ability to watch all that TV they are paying for -- but the chances of these companies doing anything that's good for the customer is next to nil.
Then the argument should be that the mini needs better video card support, not that Macs need slots. That's a big difference.
As for video upgrades, even on Macs that have sep. video cards, I've never found the need to upgrade after the fact. I usually by the video card with the most amount of memory available at the time and it serves me for the life of the machine.
Integrating the video chip onto the motherboard is going to reduce costs and space requirements- so creating a separate slot for a video card is going to cost both money (and space).
Again, I don't think the % of people that would benefit from this is significant enough to warrant it.
I'll buy the argument that the mini should offer a beefier video card. But slots seem like major overkill.
Of course, it helps if you're deaf too - the Pstar has to be one of the loudest fans I've heard in years. Not even the my G5 tower at full blast was that loud.
I think the expansion slots argument is overrated. If I had to guess, I would say that the % of people where slots are actually used is in the area of 20% max.
First, if you want help, it is best not to use inflammatory language in the process. It puts the potential helpers on the defensive. For example, saying "people who probably realized that it was completely useless but didn't want to pay the recycling fee." I know folks that are still using Apple II's 20 years later, so I think that characterization only helps to push away anyone that wants to help.
Second, I did a quick check, and apparently USB drives do work on OS 9 (which I think is the same time frame as the original iMac). Here is a discussion on Apple's support site.
It'll probably take more than two minutes to figure out, but it looks like it is possible.
Flash drives are dirt cheap these days, works on Macs and PCs. Plug it in on your Mac copy the files over, plug it in on any other machine copy files to that machine. Hmm, just like a FLOPPY, only much bigger capacity than you'll ever find on a floppy.
If there was really a need for floppies in the Mac world, you'd see them a lot more. I think about how often I've used the floppy in my PC and the answer is something like once 3-4 years ago.
This looks like a shoot yourself in the foot moment. I briefly read through the Py3K stuff and found it difficult to see what the true benefits were for creating this incompatibility. If they want to do this and have folks adopt it, they need to provide a COMPELLING SET OF REASONS for why they are making it incompatible.
If you're going to make a language completely incompatible, you basically have created a NEW language.
Sorry - but this sounds like nothing more than an attempt to maximize profits with no additional outlay of costs.
If the company was more transparent with its data (so that its claims could be verified), I'd consider hearing alternate approaches to dealing with a bandwidth crunch. But their claims sound too much like RIAA's "we're losing Billions". In other words, these companies have been known to stretch the truth.
The reality is that more and more people will be using bandwidth. Given that networks prefer streaming over downloading, you're more likely to get a temporary crunch as more folks watch the same stuff at the same time. With movie rentals (Apple), movie streaming (Netflix), a lot more than 5% will be affected. Most of this is from poor planning on TWC's side.
Tiered pricing just means you'll pay more for a lot less. And TWC LOVES THAT IDEA.
The law does say they can demand it for air travel and anytime you need to enter a government building (ie you need to interact with the gov't). So now, if you want to interact with the gov't YOU pay for, you are required to have a REAL ID.
I promise you the checkpoints where it is required WILL expand over time.. that is all but GUARANTEED. Once they become the only ID, the government can require them when cross state lines, or anywhere else they choose.
To date, I have never seen our government actively reduce its police power on the people. In fact, the exact opposite has occurred during my lifetime. And I don't see that trend changing.
The real problem is that the benefits are vague at best. You want people to jump onto this system that pushes the boundaries of privacy and liberties against the individual.
Worse, ALL that data will be easier accessed. How many reports did I read just last year where government agencies "lost" millions of records on laptops. Just imagine ONE such failure with the REAL ID data and all the hope that it might prevent fraud goes right out the window.
I agree that the 9/11 scenario is taken care of -- which is why I'm tired of our HS folks using it to scare folks into this REAL ID thing.
My fear these days is corrupt and police-state like government agencies that will arrest you on rumor, hold you indefinitely without evidence or chance of trial and if you're lucky enough -- you won't get tortured while your held indefinitely. Basically, the protections of the Constitution are all but gone. And that means we'll head even faster to a fascist state.
Can you absolutely guarantee that with these IDs that check fraud will be gone -- completely?
I mean your "benefit" is pretty flimsy given how Orwellian the cards are. I'm giving up a whole lot to my government for the *hope* that it will "help prevent check fraud"? That's not a lot of return for the high personal liberty cost.
I disagree. While I think the length is a little on the low side (I'd argue that a 10 year copyright is more reasonable because it offers enough incentive for someone to reap benefits but not so long as to keep it out of the public domain for an entire lifetime -- as in 120 years). But the truth is we have FOUR major record labels and a handful of Movie Studios that are dictating the copyright terms to the people. Copyright in the U.S. Constitution was intended to be very limiting, but Corporatism has taken over -- which is why a Mickey will remain protected in perpetuity. The losers are the people.
As for violating international agreements. So? Facts change over time and some treaties aren't meant to last forever (esp regarding things like trade). We are not living under the same treaties that governed trade in the 1700s.
I believe the UK copyrights are(were?) for a much smaller timeframe such that the Beatles will go in the public domain (in the UK) in a few short years. That's not true in the US. The Beatles works are protected here for long, long after I'm dead and that doesn't assume it wouldn't get extended AGAIN.
Right now the ONLY people benefiting from current copyright laws (and their lengths) are mega corporations. Again, Corporatism in action.
This is much like our wonderful "War on Drugs". The power to confiscate without due process! Never mind the priorities, let's just try and stick to Constitutional.
Remember, these are the same guys that think that waterboarding isn't considered torture. Credibility: 0.
They argue that they cannot know how many people actually downloaded the works and with that argument, any file sharing on the network puts you in jeopardy of gigantic damages. There is a difference between illegally burned CDs sold on the corner (which they aren't doing much about) and sharing a file. The CDs have already been burned and it is easy to show intent to distribute with the idea of making a profit from someone else's work. IMHO, intent is harder to prove with file sharing, and it is certainly not motivated by profit (like selling illegal CDs is).
Everyday I grow to dislike RIAA more and more. Their actions have directly caused me to stop spending money on music as I don't want to endorse this abuse of theirs in any way. They need to pull their head out of their ass and find a new, customer friendly, solution to this issue, one that doesn't treat ALL your potential customers like criminals. If they don't -- I expect them to die way in the next few years, like the dinosaurs that they are.
1) it doesn't run on my Mac. 2) I am not going to go out and buy ( and install) Windows (along with its various regular patches) to watch an NBC show. The shows just aren't that good.
This all comes back to control. NBC thinks it should have absolute control of how/when/where you watch their shows. The public has said they don't want that anymore (DVRs, BitTorrent, iTunes are all examples of this). But NBC still insists on absolute control. Their solutions: a streaming approach (I tried it once and it was so painful I will never, ever, go back) and now a crazy heavily DRM'd download approach that won't play on the most common video player (iPod).
I would think the recent DRM content that has been declared dead (by both Google and MLB.com) shows that DRM content means we, the viewers/buyers of this content, have zero control over it. "I'm sorry, we decided you should no longer be able to view this content." means you lose everything just like that. Some (like Google) at least offered a refund/credit. Others (like MLB.com) said screw you.
Ultimately, this again fails to take in to account the one we call "the viewer/customer". To me, it shows that NBC still doesn't get it in any way, shape, or form. They still believe they can force us, their potential viewers, to conform to their needs rather than the other way around.
I want to watch the TV shows on my iPod. If you think I will buy another player to watch your shows, you are crazy. That's like asking me to buy Windows so I can watch your shows.. oh wait, that's exactly what you told Mac folks to do.
End result: I am less and less inclined to watch NBC shows (period). Of course, NBC will blame the strike, or piracy, or lord knows what else instead of recognizing their own corporate stupidity.
What really bugs me about all this is the instructions that simply making the files available on the network is the same thing as actually distributing them, even if no one actually downloaded a single song.
We enter into the realm of "could have" instead of actually did. This is disturbing on so many levels.
Also, in typical thuggery fashion -- RIAA found the weakest defendant to prosecute to insure they can set their precedents. Now it becomes easier for them to extort large sums of cash from any one they wish to (after all you don't even have to be shown to have actually distributed a single file -- just that it "could happen"). That's scary.
Of course, the true irony is that even if the woman did pay, the artists are virtually guaranteed to NEVER see any of that money.
As for me, each attack that the RIAA does drives me away from any artists connected with RIAA. I'm just about ready to stop supporting any artist connected with RIAA in the same way one might not due business with a company directly tied to the Mafia.
But I'm sure RIAA will blame any future losss of revenue on piracy, giving them reason to sue more people (especially with this victory under their cap).
The Sony exec tells it like RIAA sees it: Making a copy of a song is just a nice way to say you're stealing a song. Fair use does not apply in the eyes of RIAA. Hell, they'd love to find a way to force us to pay for every time we listen to a song. I mean imagine the losses they feel as we play the same CD (which we bought) again and again. That's lost revenue in their eyes.
Isn't the better option to just make it permanent?
Even if I don't keep the number, I'm betting there is a 99.99% chance the next guy who gets the number doesn't want to be bothered with telemarketing calls either.
>> The suspension of habeas corpus is a policy decision - a decision to be made by the legislature and the executive in a time of great danger. The writ remains as it has always been - a "privilege" and not a "right."
And since we are locked in a War on Terror, which has no end -- habeas corpus is gone permanently! All hail King George!
Slashdot Mirror
Actually -- I'm quite informed. I have en eyeTV connected to my Mac. What it isn't, however, is a VIDEO CARD. It's a tuner connected via USB.
My response was that there are no Tuner CARDS (as in video cards) for the Mac that you would be replacing your old video card with. After all, the whole discussion has been on how Mac needs a video card slot.
yeah, the first thing someone wants to do is pull apart their Psystar and replace the fan. It is a sign of cheap engineering -- don't expect the other parts to be any better in quality.
But if you're happy doing that -- why not just build your own hackintosh?
Unless you're a hardcore GAMER, you're not changing out your video card. In fact, I know of no one that has replaced their video card (unless it specifically died on them) after their initial purchase -- but I don't hang around hardcore gamers.
But if you're a hardcore gamer, you're going to find other reasons not to use the Mac.
What a separate graphics card does guarantee is a larger form factor (and in some cases significantly larger) and more cost (along with the complains of customers who don't care about video card options and don't want to pay extra for it).
I'm not looking at this from a Mac fanatic standpoint, but from an actual user's point of view. You seem to think that EVERYONE wants to swap out their video cards every few months -- but I hardly even saw that in the Windows world. I'm sure there are plenty of folks that do it (even though that might still make a small niche market). But MOST people aren't changing out video cards. In fact, MOST people don't change anything in the PC they order from Dell or HP. Whatever they bought on day one is what they continue using.
Except that there are no tuner cards for Mac.
And if you're looking for TV tuner options, you're going to be limited to a limited # of channels due to the satellite/cable companies. You either need a box or cablecard (which only works on a couple devices and sucks in general).
Mind you, I do wish the cable/satellite companies would do something that actually benefited their customers ability to watch all that TV they are paying for -- but the chances of these companies doing anything that's good for the customer is next to nil.
Then the argument should be that the mini needs better video card support, not that Macs need slots. That's a big difference.
As for video upgrades, even on Macs that have sep. video cards, I've never found the need to upgrade after the fact. I usually by the video card with the most amount of memory available at the time and it serves me for the life of the machine.
Integrating the video chip onto the motherboard is going to reduce costs and space requirements- so creating a separate slot for a video card is going to cost both money (and space).
Again, I don't think the % of people that would benefit from this is significant enough to warrant it.
I'll buy the argument that the mini should offer a beefier video card. But slots seem like major overkill.
Of course, it helps if you're deaf too - the Pstar has to be one of the loudest fans I've heard in years. Not even the my G5 tower at full blast was that loud. I think the expansion slots argument is overrated. If I had to guess, I would say that the % of people where slots are actually used is in the area of 20% max.
First, if you want help, it is best not to use inflammatory language in the process. It puts the potential helpers on the defensive. For example, saying "people who probably realized that it was completely useless but didn't want to pay the recycling fee." I know folks that are still using Apple II's 20 years later, so I think that characterization only helps to push away anyone that wants to help.
Second, I did a quick check, and apparently USB drives do work on OS 9 (which I think is the same time frame as the original iMac). Here is a discussion on Apple's support site.
It'll probably take more than two minutes to figure out, but it looks like it is possible.
Two words: flash drive
Flash drives are dirt cheap these days, works on Macs and PCs. Plug it in on your Mac copy the files over, plug it in on any other machine copy files to that machine. Hmm, just like a FLOPPY, only much bigger capacity than you'll ever find on a floppy.
If there was really a need for floppies in the Mac world, you'd see them a lot more. I think about how often I've used the floppy in my PC and the answer is something like once 3-4 years ago.
I'm actually surprised Dvorak hasn't tried to patent this technique.
This looks like a shoot yourself in the foot moment. I briefly read through the Py3K stuff and found it difficult to see what the true benefits were for creating this incompatibility. If they want to do this and have folks adopt it, they need to provide a COMPELLING SET OF REASONS for why they are making it incompatible.
If you're going to make a language completely incompatible, you basically have created a NEW language.
Sorry - but this sounds like nothing more than an attempt to maximize profits with no additional outlay of costs.
If the company was more transparent with its data (so that its claims could be verified), I'd consider hearing alternate approaches to dealing with a bandwidth crunch. But their claims sound too much like RIAA's "we're losing Billions". In other words, these companies have been known to stretch the truth.
The reality is that more and more people will be using bandwidth. Given that networks prefer streaming over downloading, you're more likely to get a temporary crunch as more folks watch the same stuff at the same time. With movie rentals (Apple), movie streaming (Netflix), a lot more than 5% will be affected. Most of this is from poor planning on TWC's side.
Tiered pricing just means you'll pay more for a lot less. And TWC LOVES THAT IDEA.
Sorry -- I gotta call slippery slope here.
The law does say they can demand it for air travel and anytime you need to enter a government building (ie you need to interact with the gov't). So now, if you want to interact with the gov't YOU pay for, you are required to have a REAL ID.
I promise you the checkpoints where it is required WILL expand over time.. that is all but GUARANTEED. Once they become the only ID, the government can require them when cross state lines, or anywhere else they choose.
To date, I have never seen our government actively reduce its police power on the people. In fact, the exact opposite has occurred during my lifetime. And I don't see that trend changing.
The real problem is that the benefits are vague at best. You want people to jump onto this system that pushes the boundaries of privacy and liberties against the individual.
Worse, ALL that data will be easier accessed. How many reports did I read just last year where government agencies "lost" millions of records on laptops. Just imagine ONE such failure with the REAL ID data and all the hope that it might prevent fraud goes right out the window.
I agree that the 9/11 scenario is taken care of -- which is why I'm tired of our HS folks using it to scare folks into this REAL ID thing.
My fear these days is corrupt and police-state like government agencies that will arrest you on rumor, hold you indefinitely without evidence or chance of trial and if you're lucky enough -- you won't get tortured while your held indefinitely. Basically, the protections of the Constitution are all but gone. And that means we'll head even faster to a fascist state.
Can you absolutely guarantee that with these IDs that check fraud will be gone -- completely?
I mean your "benefit" is pretty flimsy given how Orwellian the cards are. I'm giving up a whole lot to my government for the *hope* that it will "help prevent check fraud"?
That's not a lot of return for the high personal liberty cost.
I disagree. While I think the length is a little on the low side (I'd argue that a 10 year copyright is more reasonable because it offers enough incentive for someone to reap benefits but not so long as to keep it out of the public domain for an entire lifetime -- as in 120 years). But the truth is we have FOUR major record labels and a handful of Movie Studios that are dictating the copyright terms to the people. Copyright in the U.S. Constitution was intended to be very limiting, but Corporatism has taken over -- which is why a Mickey will remain protected in perpetuity. The losers are the people.
As for violating international agreements. So? Facts change over time and some treaties aren't meant to last forever (esp regarding things like trade). We are not living under the same treaties that governed trade in the 1700s.
I believe the UK copyrights are(were?) for a much smaller timeframe such that the Beatles will go in the public domain (in the UK) in a few short years. That's not true in the US. The Beatles works are protected here for long, long after I'm dead and that doesn't assume it wouldn't get extended AGAIN.
Right now the ONLY people benefiting from current copyright laws (and their lengths) are mega corporations. Again, Corporatism in action.
This is much like our wonderful "War on Drugs". The power to confiscate without due process! Never mind the priorities, let's just try and stick to Constitutional.
Remember, these are the same guys that think that waterboarding isn't considered torture. Credibility: 0.
They argue that they cannot know how many people actually downloaded the works and with that argument, any file sharing on the network puts you in jeopardy of gigantic damages. There is a difference between illegally burned CDs sold on the corner (which they aren't doing much about) and sharing a file. The CDs have already been burned and it is easy to show intent to distribute with the idea of making a profit from someone else's work. IMHO, intent is harder to prove with file sharing, and it is certainly not motivated by profit (like selling illegal CDs is).
Everyday I grow to dislike RIAA more and more. Their actions have directly caused me to stop spending money on music as I don't want to endorse this abuse of theirs in any way. They need to pull their head out of their ass and find a new, customer friendly, solution to this issue, one that doesn't treat ALL your potential customers like criminals. If they don't -- I expect them to die way in the next few years, like the dinosaurs that they are.
Disclaimer: IAMAL, nor do I want to be one.
1) it doesn't run on my Mac.
2) I am not going to go out and buy ( and install) Windows (along with its various regular patches) to watch an NBC show. The shows just aren't that good.
This all comes back to control. NBC thinks it should have absolute control of how/when/where you watch their shows. The public has said they don't want that anymore (DVRs, BitTorrent, iTunes are all examples of this). But NBC still insists on absolute control. Their solutions: a streaming approach (I tried it once and it was so painful I will never, ever, go back) and now a crazy heavily DRM'd download approach that won't play on the most common video player (iPod).
I would think the recent DRM content that has been declared dead (by both Google and MLB.com) shows that DRM content means we, the viewers/buyers of this content, have zero control over it. "I'm sorry, we decided you should no longer be able to view this content." means you lose everything just like that. Some (like Google) at least offered a refund/credit. Others (like MLB.com) said screw you.
Ultimately, this again fails to take in to account the one we call "the viewer/customer". To me, it shows that NBC still doesn't get it in any way, shape, or form. They still believe they can force us, their potential viewers, to conform to their needs rather than the other way around.
I want to watch the TV shows on my iPod. If you think I will buy another player to watch your shows, you are crazy. That's like asking me to buy Windows so I can watch your shows.. oh wait, that's exactly what you told Mac folks to do.
End result: I am less and less inclined to watch NBC shows (period). Of course, NBC will blame the strike, or piracy, or lord knows what else instead of recognizing their own corporate stupidity.
Your papers please..
What really bugs me about all this is the instructions that simply making the files available on the network is the same thing as actually distributing them, even if no one actually downloaded a single song.
We enter into the realm of "could have" instead of actually did. This is disturbing on so many levels.
Also, in typical thuggery fashion -- RIAA found the weakest defendant to prosecute to insure they can set their precedents. Now it becomes easier for them to extort large sums of cash from any one they wish to (after all you don't even have to be shown to have actually distributed a single file -- just that it "could happen"). That's scary.
Of course, the true irony is that even if the woman did pay, the artists are virtually guaranteed to NEVER see any of that money.
As for me, each attack that the RIAA does drives me away from any artists connected with RIAA. I'm just about ready to stop supporting any artist connected with RIAA in the same way one might not due business with a company directly tied to the Mafia.
But I'm sure RIAA will blame any future losss of revenue on piracy, giving them reason to sue more people (especially with this victory under their cap).
The Sony exec tells it like RIAA sees it: Making a copy of a song is just a nice way to say you're stealing a song. Fair use does not apply in the eyes of RIAA. Hell, they'd love to find a way to force us to pay for every time we listen to a song. I mean imagine the losses they feel as we play the same CD (which we bought) again and again. That's lost revenue in their eyes.
Isn't the better option to just make it permanent?
Even if I don't keep the number, I'm betting there is a 99.99% chance the next guy who gets the number doesn't want to be bothered with telemarketing calls either.
I'm not sure whether to blame the typo or the spell checker. But in this age of personal responsibility, I *know* not to blame myself. :-)
..the story is used to demonstrate the perils of remaining complacent.
Like a fable, the "boiled frog" anecdote serves its purpose whether or not it's based upon something that is literally true.
>> The suspension of habeas corpus is a policy decision - a decision to be made by the legislature and the executive in a time of great danger. The writ remains as it has always been - a "privilege" and not a "right."
And since we are locked in a War on Terror, which has no end -- habeas corpus is gone permanently! All hail King George!
I think that is a different issue altogether. The point was to relate it to something a "Christian" might better understand.
I do agree with you that many of today's "Christians" do not actually behave in a Christian manner.