teme
Sep 19, 03:45 AM
PowerBook G5 by the holidays.
I wish this board would block automatically "PowerBook G5" and replace it with "************" so this tired so-called-joke would end someday.
I wish this board would block automatically "PowerBook G5" and replace it with "************" so this tired so-called-joke would end someday.
Blue Velvet
Mar 22, 08:15 AM
How many of those in the first list have the capability of fielding an airforce?
Precisely. The UN mandate is to enforce a no-fly zone, amongst other things, tasks that are particularly suited for certain nations. I'm no gung-ho supporter of this action in Libya, but it strikes me as similar to Bosnia, with the real political pressure coming particularly from France for very real reasons.
Expect the overt US involvement to rapidly scale back soon.
Funny also that we heard a DAMN THING from the media regarding the fact that ONLY CONGRESS can declare war.
Did Ronald Reagan get a go-ahead from Congress in 1986 for attacking Libya?
Precisely. The UN mandate is to enforce a no-fly zone, amongst other things, tasks that are particularly suited for certain nations. I'm no gung-ho supporter of this action in Libya, but it strikes me as similar to Bosnia, with the real political pressure coming particularly from France for very real reasons.
Expect the overt US involvement to rapidly scale back soon.
Funny also that we heard a DAMN THING from the media regarding the fact that ONLY CONGRESS can declare war.
Did Ronald Reagan get a go-ahead from Congress in 1986 for attacking Libya?
bwanac
Aug 8, 01:05 AM
Nothing impressive really... top secrets should be good.
Time Machine is ok. It looks awful for an Apple product, what is up with that background? Ugly. And I really want to know how much disk space it will be taking backing everything up constantly. I would most likely turn it off.
Time Machine is ok. It looks awful for an Apple product, what is up with that background? Ugly. And I really want to know how much disk space it will be taking backing everything up constantly. I would most likely turn it off.
manu chao
Apr 25, 02:00 PM
... sorry, but in what ways do I benefit by having apple track my whereabouts to the day and meter? why isn't there an opt-in (apart from the general 'eat **** or die' TOU) or at least an opt-out for this? why is it so easy to access the data?
And any cellular provider is tracking and storing your whereabouts equally.
The difference is that MSP might storing this for billing purposes or even because it is mandated by law (for use by law enforcement). If Apple has no need for these data (which they do not have if they are not transmitted to them), they should not store them.
And any cellular provider is tracking and storing your whereabouts equally.
The difference is that MSP might storing this for billing purposes or even because it is mandated by law (for use by law enforcement). If Apple has no need for these data (which they do not have if they are not transmitted to them), they should not store them.
tazinlwfl
Apr 25, 01:44 PM
It's moments like these that make me ashamed that I live in Florida...
Oh, and if they're from Tampa, they're probably desperate - the economy over there is one of the worst in the nation.
Oh, and if they're from Tampa, they're probably desperate - the economy over there is one of the worst in the nation.
xxBURT0Nxx
Apr 9, 09:45 AM
I don't think 2IS is getting that IF Intel allowed Nvidia to continue making sandy bridge chipsets, Nvidia could've easily integrated a 320m successor into the south bridge. This would give you the best of both worlds, the downclocked Low-voltage Intel HD graphics when on battery or basic surfing, or the 320m successor in the south bridge when playing games or aperture photo editing. All this WITHOUT raising the motherboard chip count that putting a separate discrete (on it's own, not integrated into the chipset like 320m) would entail.
I thought the 320m was also integrated? Wouldn't that mean that would be your only graphics card were nvidia allowed to add them to sandy bridge? I don't see why you would have integrated intel hd 3000 along with an integrated 320m (or successor).
I thought the 320m was also integrated? Wouldn't that mean that would be your only graphics card were nvidia allowed to add them to sandy bridge? I don't see why you would have integrated intel hd 3000 along with an integrated 320m (or successor).
2ndPath
Aug 6, 12:04 PM
To me the answer to the whole IR/Mac Pro/Front Row thing is obvious - put an integrated IR receiver into the keyboard. The keyboard would come with the Mac Pro (unlike the display) and is rarely under the desk. :)
Plus they could sell the keyboard for any Mac (including ones that don't have Front Row - they could include the app with it).
Why sell a new keyboard for front row, if you can sell a new Mac to the same person? Including the sensor in the Cinema Displays would enable Apple to sell more of their display, on which they probably have a very good profit margin (when you compare to other manufacturers).
They could also just put it into the tower. Even if that is under the desk, it might not be that much of a problem. In my experience the sensor responds very nicely to the remote even if the line of sight between them is somewhat obstructed.
However the best solution I think, was suggested by someone on these forums. I don't know, whether it has been quoted here already, because I did not go through all the messages. This poster suggested to combine the sensor with an external iSight. That could be connected to any monitor and would probably have a good IR reception because of beeing on top of the monitor and thus very exposed.
Plus they could sell the keyboard for any Mac (including ones that don't have Front Row - they could include the app with it).
Why sell a new keyboard for front row, if you can sell a new Mac to the same person? Including the sensor in the Cinema Displays would enable Apple to sell more of their display, on which they probably have a very good profit margin (when you compare to other manufacturers).
They could also just put it into the tower. Even if that is under the desk, it might not be that much of a problem. In my experience the sensor responds very nicely to the remote even if the line of sight between them is somewhat obstructed.
However the best solution I think, was suggested by someone on these forums. I don't know, whether it has been quoted here already, because I did not go through all the messages. This poster suggested to combine the sensor with an external iSight. That could be connected to any monitor and would probably have a good IR reception because of beeing on top of the monitor and thus very exposed.
inkswamp
Mar 31, 02:43 PM
John Gruber would eat Steve Job's ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
You don't read his site, do you?
You don't read his site, do you?
fivepoint
Mar 23, 02:20 PM
Again, Fivepoint, you forget that the President was selling the Iraq war with suspicious and weak information that the many questioned. It turns out they were right. Pre-war, the big issue was whether the war was justified based on the evidence being pushed by the President. The criticism President Bush faced thereafter had a lot to do with the fact that he lied to the American people in order to start a poorly planned war. They bungled every aspect of a war they lied to get us into. There were plenty of reasons to be critical.
"Lying" implies intent. Are you accusing them of lying, or getting it wrong?
Yes, there were many reasons to be critical.
Is it your position that Libya represents a larger danger to American assets/security than Iraq? If not, is it your suggestion that America should be involved in every humanitarian crisis with brutal dictators worldwide, or at least those comparable to Libya? If so, why aren't we in North Korea? Why aren't we in any number of African nations?
Out of curiousity, what do you expect? I expect conservative congressmen and women to support a conservative president, but to think for themselves, and do what they independently think is right. I don't respect blind support like what they did under GWB. Similarly, I expect liberal congressmen and women to support a liberal president, but to also think for themselves, and do what they independently think is right. Some are speaking out, and some are not blindly supporting President Obama. Can you acknowledge that the liberals are doing a better job with consistency than the GOP? If not, how do you explain GOP opposition to the Libya action?
Part of what you say is true, in that I should EXPECT people to be more critical of the other side. This is true. But I also think it's important (especially in this forum) to point out hypocrisy stemming from the left so that the Macrumors Echo Chamber doesn't keep you all in denial. What I personally expect is people to stand on principles, and not on parties. What I expect is that people live their lives in a honorable way and present a consistent philosophy. This is the same reason I rip on neo-con Republicans for talking about fiscal conservatism when history has shown us that their real world actions when in power are very different from their rhetoric... even if they still aren't as bad as the Democrats... it's not good enough. Both parties are bad at it, too many people simply tow the party line and don't think for themselves.
It sure is easy to peg me isn't it? Too bad if you go back over my posts you will find more than enough denouncing involvement in Iraq / Afghanistan.
It's much easier than actually addressing your real views... it's a defense mechanism which she uses to avoid serious debate.
If you are supporting non-intervention, than I disagree. I support the notion that the UN (using member-nations' pooled military or civilian assets) should be able to intervene in a nation's affairs if it is thought necessary to either 1) protect other nations from harm or 2) protect a nation's own people from its government, or in the case of a civil war, one or more factions.
Being a 'non-interventionist' does not mean that you NEVER support war, it means that you avoid it whenever possible. It means that you are far less prone to military intervention than someone who does not care about the values of non-interventionism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism
Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
"Lying" implies intent. Are you accusing them of lying, or getting it wrong?
Yes, there were many reasons to be critical.
Is it your position that Libya represents a larger danger to American assets/security than Iraq? If not, is it your suggestion that America should be involved in every humanitarian crisis with brutal dictators worldwide, or at least those comparable to Libya? If so, why aren't we in North Korea? Why aren't we in any number of African nations?
Out of curiousity, what do you expect? I expect conservative congressmen and women to support a conservative president, but to think for themselves, and do what they independently think is right. I don't respect blind support like what they did under GWB. Similarly, I expect liberal congressmen and women to support a liberal president, but to also think for themselves, and do what they independently think is right. Some are speaking out, and some are not blindly supporting President Obama. Can you acknowledge that the liberals are doing a better job with consistency than the GOP? If not, how do you explain GOP opposition to the Libya action?
Part of what you say is true, in that I should EXPECT people to be more critical of the other side. This is true. But I also think it's important (especially in this forum) to point out hypocrisy stemming from the left so that the Macrumors Echo Chamber doesn't keep you all in denial. What I personally expect is people to stand on principles, and not on parties. What I expect is that people live their lives in a honorable way and present a consistent philosophy. This is the same reason I rip on neo-con Republicans for talking about fiscal conservatism when history has shown us that their real world actions when in power are very different from their rhetoric... even if they still aren't as bad as the Democrats... it's not good enough. Both parties are bad at it, too many people simply tow the party line and don't think for themselves.
It sure is easy to peg me isn't it? Too bad if you go back over my posts you will find more than enough denouncing involvement in Iraq / Afghanistan.
It's much easier than actually addressing your real views... it's a defense mechanism which she uses to avoid serious debate.
If you are supporting non-intervention, than I disagree. I support the notion that the UN (using member-nations' pooled military or civilian assets) should be able to intervene in a nation's affairs if it is thought necessary to either 1) protect other nations from harm or 2) protect a nation's own people from its government, or in the case of a civil war, one or more factions.
Being a 'non-interventionist' does not mean that you NEVER support war, it means that you avoid it whenever possible. It means that you are far less prone to military intervention than someone who does not care about the values of non-interventionism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism
Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
Amazing Iceman
Mar 22, 04:46 PM
well said. it's hard to even have a civil conversation here anymore. not sure what the majority of the age group here is now, but the discussions since i've joined here just a couple of years ago seem to be on the decline with immaturity. there are a handful of respectful and open minded people who do back up their thoughts with details and sense, but you'd have to wade through a lot of "fanboy" (i hate that term) jargon to sift the ones worth replying to.
True. The debate gets too personal, and starts loosing credibility after a while.
If this was a live debate, there would have been a shootout already.
Cool off people, and provide solid arguments to sustain your point.
True. The debate gets too personal, and starts loosing credibility after a while.
If this was a live debate, there would have been a shootout already.
Cool off people, and provide solid arguments to sustain your point.
uncclew
Apr 7, 10:41 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
It's about consistent sales numbers, lower volatility. I'm sure bonus numbers etc. are tied to this. Just like when a company has a great quarter, they may try to push out revenue to the next quarter. Less volatile net income equals stronger stock price.
Not that this move would necessarily influence the stock significantly but same concept.
It's about consistent sales numbers, lower volatility. I'm sure bonus numbers etc. are tied to this. Just like when a company has a great quarter, they may try to push out revenue to the next quarter. Less volatile net income equals stronger stock price.
Not that this move would necessarily influence the stock significantly but same concept.
kalun
Sep 18, 11:06 PM
In Macbook/Pro are updating in Novemeber...It means Apple is 3 months behind all laptop manufactures...
I seriously doubt that Apple will let that happen, but then again, they are apple, they think differently!
I seriously doubt that Apple will let that happen, but then again, they are apple, they think differently!
KilGil27
Aug 25, 07:39 PM
just because your battery falls within a range of serial numbers doesn't mean it needs to be replaced... if it tells you your laptop qualifies but your battery doesn't, then it was only the first part of the serial number... not the whole thing
Bubba Satori
Apr 6, 08:17 AM
Forget about new Macs! just give us FCS A.S.A.P. :eek:
That makes a lot of sense.
Can't the most profitable corporation in the universe do two things at once?
That makes a lot of sense.
Can't the most profitable corporation in the universe do two things at once?
NoSmokingBandit
Dec 9, 04:11 PM
The car list, while huge, is FILLED with cars that I have absolutely no desire to drive in a racing game. I get Kaz's intention, bringing in cars from many eras and different parts of the automotive spectrum to see them, and maybe appreciate them more. But this is a racing game at its core, and I don't ever want to race a VW Kombi.
I love racing my VW Bus. I also love racing the Vauxhall Tigra, which has about 96hp iirc. If all you want to do it buy an F1 and drive as quickly as possible dont even bother looking in GT5's direction. I get bored when i get to the faster races because you get stuck with the same dull cars every game. Woohoo, lets all buy a 458 Italia, F1, or Murcielago... :rolleyes:
I like the early races where i can tune up a Cappucino and get at most 200hp out of it.
GT5 is a game for people who love cars. Not people who only love fast cars. People who love all cars.
I'm sure you'd be happy if everyone started with a Zonda in their garage, but for people who like to drive something fresh and fun the exhaustive list in GT5 is perfect.
I love racing my VW Bus. I also love racing the Vauxhall Tigra, which has about 96hp iirc. If all you want to do it buy an F1 and drive as quickly as possible dont even bother looking in GT5's direction. I get bored when i get to the faster races because you get stuck with the same dull cars every game. Woohoo, lets all buy a 458 Italia, F1, or Murcielago... :rolleyes:
I like the early races where i can tune up a Cappucino and get at most 200hp out of it.
GT5 is a game for people who love cars. Not people who only love fast cars. People who love all cars.
I'm sure you'd be happy if everyone started with a Zonda in their garage, but for people who like to drive something fresh and fun the exhaustive list in GT5 is perfect.
maclaptop
Apr 20, 07:42 AM
Poor Paranoid Apple :)
milo
Aug 17, 09:21 AM
You're right. I'm extremely unimpressed that the fastest xeon only days old is actually slower mhz for mhz than a G5 that is pushing 4 year old technology. Really sad.
But overall it's not. Whenever you change chips, you'll probably always find a benchmark that favors the old one. Just because one app isn't faster doesn't mean the new chip is slower.
But it's not faster. Slower actually than the G5 at some apps. What's everyone looking at anyway? I'm pretty unimpressed. Other than Adobe's usage of cache (AE is a cache lover and will use all of it, hence the faster performance).
But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!
What are you talking about? The xeon is faster in every native benchmark, the only exception is one render where the slower xeon tied the G5. If you do indeed look at the average specs, the xeons blow away the G5.
Looks like the Xeons got killed by the G5 in Word in their tests.
Because it's running under rosetta, ram has nothing to do with it.
It's odd, seeing as Mac's are still the choice for many musicians that some kind of specs are never given that would be of interest to musicians. The released figures don't do much for me. I'd like to know the polyphony improvements say for Kontakt under both systems in Digital Performer 5.
There have been Logic benchmarks elsewhere, and they're pretty impressive. 1.4-1.5x improvements, pretty nice considering how fast the quad is already for audio plugins.
But overall it's not. Whenever you change chips, you'll probably always find a benchmark that favors the old one. Just because one app isn't faster doesn't mean the new chip is slower.
But it's not faster. Slower actually than the G5 at some apps. What's everyone looking at anyway? I'm pretty unimpressed. Other than Adobe's usage of cache (AE is a cache lover and will use all of it, hence the faster performance).
But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!
What are you talking about? The xeon is faster in every native benchmark, the only exception is one render where the slower xeon tied the G5. If you do indeed look at the average specs, the xeons blow away the G5.
Looks like the Xeons got killed by the G5 in Word in their tests.
Because it's running under rosetta, ram has nothing to do with it.
It's odd, seeing as Mac's are still the choice for many musicians that some kind of specs are never given that would be of interest to musicians. The released figures don't do much for me. I'd like to know the polyphony improvements say for Kontakt under both systems in Digital Performer 5.
There have been Logic benchmarks elsewhere, and they're pretty impressive. 1.4-1.5x improvements, pretty nice considering how fast the quad is already for audio plugins.
donlphi
Nov 29, 12:26 AM
I teach high school kids and I hear them talk about stuff all the time. I know one thing for sure, if kids can't find what they want on iTUNES, they will download it illegally. My thoughts are, if a record company doesn't want to sell their music at iTunes, it's their loss at this point. They could sell some or none. If it isn't available at iTunes, then people only have a few other options.
1. Buy the CD at a retail store (if there is one nearby and stock is available)
2. Go without completely
3. Download a copy from ____________ (fill in the blank)
If I spend $300 on a media player, I will (as will others) find a way to get any music on there.
I don't see Apple giving in unless they TRULY feel the record companies are deserving... which they are not.
1. Buy the CD at a retail store (if there is one nearby and stock is available)
2. Go without completely
3. Download a copy from ____________ (fill in the blank)
If I spend $300 on a media player, I will (as will others) find a way to get any music on there.
I don't see Apple giving in unless they TRULY feel the record companies are deserving... which they are not.
kenypowa
Apr 27, 08:19 AM
Wow. That's surprising. This whole time people downplayed it because there was no evidence that apple was actually transmitting this data. It wasn't a big deal because the db file was local only. Now when Apple addresses it they had to not only admit that the file exists but that they actually were transmitting data.
Ah well, still not a big deal. :p
It was never a big deal. Either you are holding it wrong or there is a misunderstanding. Apple never makes mistakes, didn't you get the memo? ;)
Ah well, still not a big deal. :p
It was never a big deal. Either you are holding it wrong or there is a misunderstanding. Apple never makes mistakes, didn't you get the memo? ;)
monster620ie
Aug 19, 02:33 AM
I'm sure it will be a free download update not more money. But I'm not surprised. That's why I'm waiting until December 10 to mail in my Crossgrade form and DVD. I wanted to get all the updates until the offer expires December 20 on the install DVDs I get with my Crossgrade. Thanks for pointing out that detail. :)
Darn it ... I just received my crossgrade upgrade yesterday eventhough I only own powerbook and am waiting for merom based laptop. While on the topic of fcp, can I install on my powerbook for now and in install on later on my future intel-laptop? (reading the legal eula it seems install is only allowed for one laptop and desktop... I guess I will have to uninstall first on powerbook .....) I am just not sure if apple will block my serial number or something ...
Darn it ... I just received my crossgrade upgrade yesterday eventhough I only own powerbook and am waiting for merom based laptop. While on the topic of fcp, can I install on my powerbook for now and in install on later on my future intel-laptop? (reading the legal eula it seems install is only allowed for one laptop and desktop... I guess I will have to uninstall first on powerbook .....) I am just not sure if apple will block my serial number or something ...
DoFoT9
Aug 14, 11:44 PM
I have enough skill to win the faster races, i just have more fun with a "real" car instead of something with neck-snapping acceleration and tires that stick to the road if you take a hair-pin at 200mph.
I have a lot more fun driving cars that anyone can afford.
are you rich then? :p
i only hope that GT5 is more realistic then simulated this time..
I have a lot more fun driving cars that anyone can afford.
are you rich then? :p
i only hope that GT5 is more realistic then simulated this time..
shamino
Jul 22, 12:18 PM
So I read in this thread that Kentsfield and Clovertown ARE compatible with Conroe and Woodcrest sockets (respectively) (Cloverton or Clovertown?)
Well, people here have mentioned it. I haven't seen any sources for these claims, however.
It's worth noting that the Pentium 4 shipped in several different socket packages over the years. The fact that the cores might be electrically compatible does not necessarily mean you're going to be able to perform a chip-swap upgrade on your Mac!
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.
And assuming they don't solder the chip to the motherboard, or hardwire the clock-multiplier chips, or hard-wire the voltage regulator settings, etc.
There are a lot of things that can be done to a motherboard to make these kinds of upgrades painful or even impossible.
With any kind of rumor like this, "I'll believe it when I see it" should be your mantra. Sure, these kinds of upgrades would be great, and it may even be possible to perform them on generic PC motherbaords, but this doesn't necessarily mean it will be easy or even possible on the systems Apple ends up shipping.
BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed.
"Never" is always too strong a word. But there are plenty of good reasons to say "useless for today's applications" or "not worth the cost".
When applications start demanding more, and when costs come down, then the equations change. As they always do.
When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to)...
You're looking forward to this? Let's hope for your sake that Microsoft has nothing to do with the system software.
I don't think it will be possible, even in 40 years, despite what sci-fi authors are predicting. And there's no way I'd ever have such a system installed even if it would be come possible. The possibility of dying or becoming comatose, or even worse, as a result of a software glitch is something I'm not going to allow. To quote McCoy from Star Trek: "Let's see how it scrambles your molecules first."
So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.
But do you want to be the first person to have to pay for it?
Well, people here have mentioned it. I haven't seen any sources for these claims, however.
It's worth noting that the Pentium 4 shipped in several different socket packages over the years. The fact that the cores might be electrically compatible does not necessarily mean you're going to be able to perform a chip-swap upgrade on your Mac!
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.
And assuming they don't solder the chip to the motherboard, or hardwire the clock-multiplier chips, or hard-wire the voltage regulator settings, etc.
There are a lot of things that can be done to a motherboard to make these kinds of upgrades painful or even impossible.
With any kind of rumor like this, "I'll believe it when I see it" should be your mantra. Sure, these kinds of upgrades would be great, and it may even be possible to perform them on generic PC motherbaords, but this doesn't necessarily mean it will be easy or even possible on the systems Apple ends up shipping.
BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed.
"Never" is always too strong a word. But there are plenty of good reasons to say "useless for today's applications" or "not worth the cost".
When applications start demanding more, and when costs come down, then the equations change. As they always do.
When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to)...
You're looking forward to this? Let's hope for your sake that Microsoft has nothing to do with the system software.
I don't think it will be possible, even in 40 years, despite what sci-fi authors are predicting. And there's no way I'd ever have such a system installed even if it would be come possible. The possibility of dying or becoming comatose, or even worse, as a result of a software glitch is something I'm not going to allow. To quote McCoy from Star Trek: "Let's see how it scrambles your molecules first."
So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.
But do you want to be the first person to have to pay for it?
Deflorator
Mar 31, 03:32 PM
What the heck is this? The "Steve was right" month?
Pathetic Dell and HP, desperate Microsoft, Samsung aka Mr. "Smoothbastic", Google inhibiting fragmentation, the very one, which does NOT exist, really...
who is next? Oh, i have got it - Adobe. So come on, resistance is futile.
Pathetic Dell and HP, desperate Microsoft, Samsung aka Mr. "Smoothbastic", Google inhibiting fragmentation, the very one, which does NOT exist, really...
who is next? Oh, i have got it - Adobe. So come on, resistance is futile.
AmbitiousLemon
Nov 28, 07:43 PM
This reminds me of this article from BBspot: http://www.bbspot.com/News/2006/11/home-theater-regulations.html
MPAA Lobbying for Home Theater Regulations
By Scott Small
Los Angeles , CA - The MPAA is lobbying congress to push through a new bill that would make unauthorized home theaters illegal. The group feels that all theaters should be sanctioned, whether they be commercial settings or at home.
MPAA head Dan Glickman says this needs to be regulated before things start getting too far out of control, "We didn't act early enough with the online sharing of our copyrighted content. This time we're not making the same mistake. We have a right to know what's showing in a theater."
The bill would require that any hardware manufactured in the future contain technology that tells the MPAA directly of what is being shown and specific details on the audience. The data would be gathered using various motion sensors and biometric technology.
The MPAA defines a home theater as any home with a television larger than 29" with stereo sound and at least two comfortable chairs, couch, or futon. Anyone with a home theater would need to pay a $50 registration fee with the MPAA or face fines up to $500,000 per movie shown.
Related News
"Just because you buy a DVD to watch at home doesn't give you the right to invite friends over to watch it too. That's a violation of copyright and denies us the revenue that would be generated from DVD sales to your friends," said Glickman. "Ideally we expect each viewer to have their own copy of the DVD, but we realize that isn't always feasible. The registration fee is a fair compromise.
The bill also stipulates that any existing home theaters be retrofitted with the technology or else the owner is responsible for directly informing the MPAA and receiving approval before each viewing.
Unfortunately the BBspot article is a joke, and Reuters story isn't.
MPAA Lobbying for Home Theater Regulations
By Scott Small
Los Angeles , CA - The MPAA is lobbying congress to push through a new bill that would make unauthorized home theaters illegal. The group feels that all theaters should be sanctioned, whether they be commercial settings or at home.
MPAA head Dan Glickman says this needs to be regulated before things start getting too far out of control, "We didn't act early enough with the online sharing of our copyrighted content. This time we're not making the same mistake. We have a right to know what's showing in a theater."
The bill would require that any hardware manufactured in the future contain technology that tells the MPAA directly of what is being shown and specific details on the audience. The data would be gathered using various motion sensors and biometric technology.
The MPAA defines a home theater as any home with a television larger than 29" with stereo sound and at least two comfortable chairs, couch, or futon. Anyone with a home theater would need to pay a $50 registration fee with the MPAA or face fines up to $500,000 per movie shown.
Related News
"Just because you buy a DVD to watch at home doesn't give you the right to invite friends over to watch it too. That's a violation of copyright and denies us the revenue that would be generated from DVD sales to your friends," said Glickman. "Ideally we expect each viewer to have their own copy of the DVD, but we realize that isn't always feasible. The registration fee is a fair compromise.
The bill also stipulates that any existing home theaters be retrofitted with the technology or else the owner is responsible for directly informing the MPAA and receiving approval before each viewing.
Unfortunately the BBspot article is a joke, and Reuters story isn't.