Best Trend Tattoos Design

Just one step closer to 10.7.3, the first release I would ever think to use.

Of course they're going to refresh the laptops before the holidays. Duh. :rolleyes:

My quadra still runs, I guess I'm the forth party to get it.

This feels almost like an onion article:

Home Computer Gives Birth to Octuple-Cores

<enter photoshopped picture of a Mac Pro craddling its new born octuplets>

My first job as a graphic designer I used an enhanced SE/30 (with 20" external monitor). About a year later we upgraded to the Quadras, so I guess that makes me #5?

I question any law/contract of this type on several grounds:
1 - How are the eligable rightsholders identified/compensated?
It depends on the system in place. In Canada, I believe the proceeds are turned over to the CRIA which is then responsible for distribution to its members through a process of their own selection (and not legally specified).

2 - How are they compensated equitably? Do you compensate Jay-Z and a classical artist the same? Which ever you prefer, Jay-Z sells more.
Again, it's up to the labels to decide. Once they get their cut from the CRIA, the label controls distribution within its internal channels. More popular artists on that label probably get a bigger cut than niche artists, but more importantly, individual artists likely never see much in the way of proceeds from this.
3 - If I've paid the royalty, don't I own rights to the music? Sure, I may need to find a copy of it, but I'm told that they're all over a thing called the "internet".
No. Most importantly, the royalty does not create a stipulation, or even a fiduciary relationship between you, the customer, and the CRIA. The exchange is between the company (Apple, RCA, Samsung, Microsoft, etc.) and the industry consortium.

Even setting that aside, you have no record of a transaction taking place at all. You can't claim to have paid royalties and have received nothing in return granting you any rights (one way to fight this is to demand that a given label supply you with a written document). Absent consideration, all you've essentially done is paid money for nothing--you didn't send the label a contract with your dollar (and you can't, since you're not paying them the dollar anyway, you'd be paying Apple). Your contribution isn't so much because you're pirating music, but because you could be. It's like putting down a deposit, having to pay insurance, or having a membership in a book club. You pay money, but that's not the end of the transaction. The only thing this royalty grants you is a tacit guarantee that Universal will continue to provide digital content.

if any of you are concerned about being tracked - why on earth would you buy any product that has a GPS in it (all computers cash info) and why on earth would you buy a cell phone - the towers know almost exactly when (which apple doesn't know) and where you are? The reaction to this news is stupid.

I pretty much agree with you, but I can see where others are coming from on this one. Mobile phones and computers are, in this age, a necessity. There's very little point in denying that. Still, people want to maintain their privacy. I think some people thought it was possible to maintain privacy while owning necessary items. You can't expect someone not to buy a computer or phone. That's not a solution. I respect the idea that people enjoy anonymity and I do too. It's nearly impossible in this world, but what little can be done is worth pursuing in my opinion, so people's expectations, while perhaps a bit naive are not absurd.

When I first saw this feature I thought great. I do regular back ups, but some of my AW docs keep corrupting (probably something to do with keep duplicating the same old document and modifying rather than starting anew). Time Machine will help me no end. I was also thrilled that windows had nothing like this........ until I read through these posts.

Then it seemed very similar to what was coming in Vista and I felt a bit dissapointed that Apple had made such a point about M$ copying them, but seemed to do the same themselves with Time Machine.

However on closer examination this is not the case and my confidence in Apple's innovative skills is restored.

Firstly, there has always been back up and restore apps, so if you want to take this copying thing to a ridiculous level, of course you can do. Copying in my book is when an app does and looks the same (just like the screenshots in the presentation, safari RSS/IE7 RSS, ical/M$ calender etc). It appears to me Time Machine does much more than anything before it and has it's own unique UI to boot.

Secondly, I would imagine work on Time machine started long before a beta of Vista was released, even if the two utilities were more or less identical it would be coincidence not copying.

Thirdly, it seems quite clear that Vista's restore (whatever it's called) will not do what Time machine will do. Ultimately you may well be able to restore any deleted or modified file in Vista, but it doesn't appear to occur with the same ease or functionality.

If I create a file, modify it and move it several times, rename it, convert it, modify it some more, move it several times and finally delete it, I rather suspect it would be an absolute nightmare to recover in Vista, whereas it seems that Time Machine would have little problem.

I don't see how it is possible in Vista to perform the recovery with either the same simplicity or pizzaz as Time Machine. Perhaps if M$ had not abandoned their intended file system for Vista it might have been possible, but as it is I doubt it.

Finally it does not appear that Vista has the option to restore within a database application (i.e. iphoto, mail, address book), no doubt if you understand how a particular database works, the possibility exists to restore a particular photo, but let's not pretend it will be easy or anywhere near the experience of time machine.

And finally, finally, although I agree the UI may appear a little childish, this is exactly the sort of thing that makes it so easy to use.

Looking forward to the new final cut studio.

if apple is smart they will allow access to individual parts of the suite
as seperate Mac App Store downloads.

If it were possible to buy apple Motion on it's own I think many existing After Effects would be very happy to have something else to play with that can take adavantage of their hardware and deliver some fun realtime workflows...

it could be a halo product for such editors as well to end up using the whole suite...

I bought motion for 300 when it used to be sold individually, and I have spent a tonne of money since simply because I love that product.

do it apple. please.

Motion has a funny reputation. I find it quite powerful and very intuitive now that I've been using it almost exclusively for over a year. I know a lot of AE users find it very hard to make the mental leap to the different methodology, and I totally understand that as it took me several months of regular work to really adjust my headspace to the new way of thinking.

How the different parts of the Studio might be merged or changed is one of the more interesting questions for me. You could overload FCP if you tried to cram all the other apps together, but there's no question there's room for tighter integration.

It would be very surprising to see the different programs sold separately thought the appStore. The programs themselves aren't too massive [and may have been streamlined more] but the extra content for loops would make it a HEAFTY download for anyone!

This evening can't come soon enough, glad to have all the speculation over with and concentrate on what it actually is [and isn't].

If anyone comes up with a good liveblog or ustream of the presentation, remember to post it here. So far, the best coverage I can find it twitter feeds for people like Larry Jordan or Philip Hodgetts who will be in attendance.

probably due to latency involved in distributing the load across the two processors. that's the same problem a single Clovertown would have. Only true quads wouldn't suffer from these problems (earliest seems to be Harpertown in don't know if there are any non-MCM Xeons scheduled before then)

What about Tigerton (2007)? Isn't that a "true" quad?