tristangage
Apr 13, 12:00 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5262/5616177495_3fdf26e3ff.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tristangage/5616177495/)
recording dials 4 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tristangage/5616177495/) by tristangage (http://www.flickr.com/people/tristangage/), on Flickr
Camera Canon EOS 500D
Exposure 0.017 sec (1/60)
Aperture f/5.6
Focal Length 55 mm
ISO Speed 800
recording dials 4 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tristangage/5616177495/) by tristangage (http://www.flickr.com/people/tristangage/), on Flickr
Camera Canon EOS 500D
Exposure 0.017 sec (1/60)
Aperture f/5.6
Focal Length 55 mm
ISO Speed 800
guru_ck
Apr 22, 04:22 PM
My favorite iPhone design was the first one. Bring back the aluminum and rounded sides. It's not comfortable to hold this iPhone 4 brick!
cocky jeremy
Jan 27, 03:23 AM
Bought a 4 pack of the "Daylight" type of bulb...what a major difference in lighting, soft white sucks
Very, very true. I have some of these.. i love the color. Everything feels so much cleaner and brighter.
Purchase of the day: Broccoli to eat with ranch.. yum. :)
Very, very true. I have some of these.. i love the color. Everything feels so much cleaner and brighter.
Purchase of the day: Broccoli to eat with ranch.. yum. :)
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 26, 05:07 PM
What a freaking RIP-OFF. You could buy 20 new songs a year for that instead (well not on Apple anymore sine they royally screwed everyone on some BS basis of "85 cents songs" to offset the "$1.29" ones except that as most of us predicted, there are hardly any 85 cents songs in existence yet a heck of lot of $1.29 ones. In other words, all they did was jack up prices to cover crap artists who can't sing and don't write their own songs and make farting noises and call it art.)
Meanwhile, what good would this service do? Do you seriously think they're going to let you access your music that you did NOT buy from iTunes??? (i.e. your CD collection dumped to iTunes) NO WAY. You'd have to UPLOAD the entire library first. How LONG would that take? Ridiculous. Then you miss a payment and they delete it all.... It's far more likely it's only for songs you already bought (in which case you could already just 'buy' them again and download them for free; in other words the service is worthless).
What most people would prefer I think is a flat fee music-on-demand service where you can listen to ANY music you want from the entire library. Pandora, Sonus, etc. already offer this service so Apple's "retrieve your own library online" is stupid, IMO. You could rent some storage somewhere and just upload your music there and download it anywhere on the Net WITHOUT APPLE even being involved. The whole thing strikes me as a cash grab from Apple to make you pay for the music you already paid for ALL OVER AGAIN. Bought 100 songs? 5 years you bought 'em again. No value.
My entire music library is only 70GB in AAC without music videos. That would almost fit on an iPod Touch 64GB or USB 64GB stick as it is, let alone my Netbook which has 160GB on it and my MBP which has 500GB. So the ONLY way this service could be useful is if I could access ALL MY MOVIES from anywhere on the Net. That would require 2.6TB of storage, though. I don't see Apple covering that and I wouldn't even want to TRY to upload all those movies from my own library (and Apple doesn't even sell (let alone in good quality) 40% of them and 95% of the HD ones.
No, a flat fee for unlimited rentals (music and movies) would be a good deal. I don't see Apple offering that any time soon, if EVER.
Meanwhile, what good would this service do? Do you seriously think they're going to let you access your music that you did NOT buy from iTunes??? (i.e. your CD collection dumped to iTunes) NO WAY. You'd have to UPLOAD the entire library first. How LONG would that take? Ridiculous. Then you miss a payment and they delete it all.... It's far more likely it's only for songs you already bought (in which case you could already just 'buy' them again and download them for free; in other words the service is worthless).
What most people would prefer I think is a flat fee music-on-demand service where you can listen to ANY music you want from the entire library. Pandora, Sonus, etc. already offer this service so Apple's "retrieve your own library online" is stupid, IMO. You could rent some storage somewhere and just upload your music there and download it anywhere on the Net WITHOUT APPLE even being involved. The whole thing strikes me as a cash grab from Apple to make you pay for the music you already paid for ALL OVER AGAIN. Bought 100 songs? 5 years you bought 'em again. No value.
My entire music library is only 70GB in AAC without music videos. That would almost fit on an iPod Touch 64GB or USB 64GB stick as it is, let alone my Netbook which has 160GB on it and my MBP which has 500GB. So the ONLY way this service could be useful is if I could access ALL MY MOVIES from anywhere on the Net. That would require 2.6TB of storage, though. I don't see Apple covering that and I wouldn't even want to TRY to upload all those movies from my own library (and Apple doesn't even sell (let alone in good quality) 40% of them and 95% of the HD ones.
No, a flat fee for unlimited rentals (music and movies) would be a good deal. I don't see Apple offering that any time soon, if EVER.
mhof
Mar 16, 12:43 AM
Anyone hittin' up Southcoast? My schedule is pretty open so I'm thinking of spending my morning there.
gpat
Apr 24, 02:19 AM
Just release a GSM/CDMA every-band iPhone 5, and sell it off contract as well. Virgin Mobile USA customers are going to orgasm for that.
sparkomatic
Mar 11, 04:16 PM
They just walked by and said that they don't have quantities. They can't open their stock until they close the store at 3pm.
Full of Win
Apr 24, 03:43 PM
Yeah... and based on sales, not surveys, the iPhone sure is hurting now given it just had it's best sales quarter ever. :rolleyes:
Win... why don't you get it? There is the iPhone and then there is everything else. Android is a good smart phone OS... IMO, the best alternative to the iPhone. But the reality is, people buy an iPhone because they want an iPhone. People buy an Android based phone because they want a phone and it's on sale this week.
Android is not going to slaughter the iPhone. It's a huge market out there and there will always be multiple alternatives for the OS's. If anything, the companies with the most worries are RIM and Microsoft. They continue to loose market share like crazy to Apple and Android based phones.
But please... If you want to fantasias about Android OS phones taking over the world, I'm sure there more people like you over on the Android forums that also have this twisted view. Besides, why does the iPhone worry you so much? It's great that it's there and it's great the Android is there too. The competition is making both solutions better.
There is a difference between sales and market share. Without a doubt, part of the appeal of android is cost - it's just cheaper to buy. However, it's not as simple as you suggest
People buy an Android based phone because they want a phone and it's on sale this week
Some people buy it so they can have a larger screen, some because they want a keyboard, some because they have specific hardware needs (e.g. The US Army), some because they do not want to live under of the heel of Steve Jobs twisted moral code. I could go on, but it's become the proverbial dead horse. Sure, Android has pitfalls in that it can run almost anything, but I would rather have the freedom to make a bad app choice than to live in the walled garden that iOS is becoming.
In short, the freedom to make choices, even bad ones, is superior to being spoon fed like a baby as Apple tends to do.
Win... why don't you get it? There is the iPhone and then there is everything else. Android is a good smart phone OS... IMO, the best alternative to the iPhone. But the reality is, people buy an iPhone because they want an iPhone. People buy an Android based phone because they want a phone and it's on sale this week.
Android is not going to slaughter the iPhone. It's a huge market out there and there will always be multiple alternatives for the OS's. If anything, the companies with the most worries are RIM and Microsoft. They continue to loose market share like crazy to Apple and Android based phones.
But please... If you want to fantasias about Android OS phones taking over the world, I'm sure there more people like you over on the Android forums that also have this twisted view. Besides, why does the iPhone worry you so much? It's great that it's there and it's great the Android is there too. The competition is making both solutions better.
There is a difference between sales and market share. Without a doubt, part of the appeal of android is cost - it's just cheaper to buy. However, it's not as simple as you suggest
People buy an Android based phone because they want a phone and it's on sale this week
Some people buy it so they can have a larger screen, some because they want a keyboard, some because they have specific hardware needs (e.g. The US Army), some because they do not want to live under of the heel of Steve Jobs twisted moral code. I could go on, but it's become the proverbial dead horse. Sure, Android has pitfalls in that it can run almost anything, but I would rather have the freedom to make a bad app choice than to live in the walled garden that iOS is becoming.
In short, the freedom to make choices, even bad ones, is superior to being spoon fed like a baby as Apple tends to do.
MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 11, 10:54 AM
What's with all the developers that won't do Universal Apps?
If you're supporting both platforms anyway, it's actually far less code, and less testing to just do a Universal App. (I know, I've done two of them so far.)
Apple dropped support for PPC in Snow Leopard and so many programs now even require Snow Leopard to run. Such programs will not work in Leopard, let alone as Universal Apps. If you use any Snow Leopard specific features, I figure you cannot get a Universal binary regardless. It's why I think Apple should have waited until Lion to ditch PPC. Developers for OSX tend to prematurely drop support for previous versions of the operating system simply because they cannot be bothered to support it and/or have no way to test it. I think a lot of apps didn't bother with PPC purely due to the testing issue. Some apps need a bit of tweaking to work in PPC some times even with Apple's two for the price of one system.
This is why I said when Apple dropped PPC for a "tweak" upgrade (Snow Leopard) that PPC was pretty much finished despite all the people saying that "Leopard still works". Yes, it still works but most new software does not. You see the same thin on the App store for iOS a lot. Some app updates will suddenly require iOS 4.x and too bad if iTunes isn't flagged properly and it updates it locally since older iPod Touches and iPhones won't be able to use the app at that point.
You don't just lose out on any new operating system features when your hardware isn't supported any longer. You often lose out on new software as well. You rarely see this with Windows. The vast majority of software that works with Vista and Windows7 still works with XP. Even most games still support DirectX 9 as well because so many users still use XP (which is still faster for gaming for the most part). And XP isn't even officially supported by Microsoft anymore. I guess that's the problem with the high turnover rates with OSX. Older versions get dumped into oblivion instead of slowly fading away. Look how fast OS9 disappeared off the face of the earth whereas you could still get quite a bit of software for Win98 a decade later even.
As for Skyfire and flash, it just proves that despite fanboy ravings on here, a lot of people still want to be able to view Flash web sites. Having a crippled Internet experience just plain sucks, especially if it's only to push one man's agenda for a Flash free Internet. Well, it's not going anywhere fast, regardless and Apple should not be allowed to market things like "the whole Internet" for iOS devices when it's not true.
If you're supporting both platforms anyway, it's actually far less code, and less testing to just do a Universal App. (I know, I've done two of them so far.)
Apple dropped support for PPC in Snow Leopard and so many programs now even require Snow Leopard to run. Such programs will not work in Leopard, let alone as Universal Apps. If you use any Snow Leopard specific features, I figure you cannot get a Universal binary regardless. It's why I think Apple should have waited until Lion to ditch PPC. Developers for OSX tend to prematurely drop support for previous versions of the operating system simply because they cannot be bothered to support it and/or have no way to test it. I think a lot of apps didn't bother with PPC purely due to the testing issue. Some apps need a bit of tweaking to work in PPC some times even with Apple's two for the price of one system.
This is why I said when Apple dropped PPC for a "tweak" upgrade (Snow Leopard) that PPC was pretty much finished despite all the people saying that "Leopard still works". Yes, it still works but most new software does not. You see the same thin on the App store for iOS a lot. Some app updates will suddenly require iOS 4.x and too bad if iTunes isn't flagged properly and it updates it locally since older iPod Touches and iPhones won't be able to use the app at that point.
You don't just lose out on any new operating system features when your hardware isn't supported any longer. You often lose out on new software as well. You rarely see this with Windows. The vast majority of software that works with Vista and Windows7 still works with XP. Even most games still support DirectX 9 as well because so many users still use XP (which is still faster for gaming for the most part). And XP isn't even officially supported by Microsoft anymore. I guess that's the problem with the high turnover rates with OSX. Older versions get dumped into oblivion instead of slowly fading away. Look how fast OS9 disappeared off the face of the earth whereas you could still get quite a bit of software for Win98 a decade later even.
As for Skyfire and flash, it just proves that despite fanboy ravings on here, a lot of people still want to be able to view Flash web sites. Having a crippled Internet experience just plain sucks, especially if it's only to push one man's agenda for a Flash free Internet. Well, it's not going anywhere fast, regardless and Apple should not be allowed to market things like "the whole Internet" for iOS devices when it's not true.
likemyorbs
May 2, 12:54 AM
If you want to go that route, milk it for all it's worth. Preserve him, decorate him as a pi�ata, and have anyone who wants take three whacks on primetime worldwide TV. Families of 9/11 victims get to be first in line.
I like it! And after they're done Obama can piss on his corpse! :D
I disagree, we should wrap him in an army blanket and bury Bin Laden in an unmarked grave; the man's had enough celebrity already.
But then you're gonna have muslims demanding that he has a proper muslim burial, that's all we need...
I like it! And after they're done Obama can piss on his corpse! :D
I disagree, we should wrap him in an army blanket and bury Bin Laden in an unmarked grave; the man's had enough celebrity already.
But then you're gonna have muslims demanding that he has a proper muslim burial, that's all we need...
shelterpaw
Jul 21, 02:02 PM
I'll get excited when/if Apple's Market share reaches 10%. Other than that, it's not such a big deal, IMO. :o
dornoforpyros
Oct 24, 07:59 AM
haha, of course, and I bought on saturday :p
I'll decide what to do later, I'm well within the 14 day return obviously, but I'm also not too keen on returning the laptop and waiting a few more weeks for a new one to arrive in Canada.
I'll decide what to do later, I'm well within the 14 day return obviously, but I'm also not too keen on returning the laptop and waiting a few more weeks for a new one to arrive in Canada.
diamond.g
Apr 11, 02:43 PM
...snip...
All I can say is, "Thank God." Near term I get rid of tons of cables -- I have seven attached to my MBP on my desktop right now (external monitor, FW800 for external drive, Ethernet, FW400 for scanner, USB for keyboard, USB for printer, and audio out to external speakers). Long-term it is possible Thunderbolt will enable changes we can't envision right now.
My only issue is the name "Thunderbolt" and the weird lightening bolt (that to date has always meant "touch this an you die from electrocution"). Light Peak was nearly perfect IMHO. Oh well, I'm guessing some committee group came up with this.
How are you going to reduce the number of cables? It seems like you would still need the same number of cables.
All I can say is, "Thank God." Near term I get rid of tons of cables -- I have seven attached to my MBP on my desktop right now (external monitor, FW800 for external drive, Ethernet, FW400 for scanner, USB for keyboard, USB for printer, and audio out to external speakers). Long-term it is possible Thunderbolt will enable changes we can't envision right now.
My only issue is the name "Thunderbolt" and the weird lightening bolt (that to date has always meant "touch this an you die from electrocution"). Light Peak was nearly perfect IMHO. Oh well, I'm guessing some committee group came up with this.
How are you going to reduce the number of cables? It seems like you would still need the same number of cables.
zombierunner
Apr 26, 08:12 AM
Nu Eye Max
New iMacs
New iMacs
akac
Nov 4, 01:19 AM
Whatever dude. 2Ghz\2GB RAM\256MB Video\160GB HD and there is NOTHING instantaneous about Parallels at all. It takes anywhere from 1-2 minutes to resume a session and another 2+ minutes to suspend it. This is with multiple images, several OS X installs, and I know how to tweak Windows with the best of them.
Sounds like you're not talking about Parallels starting up, but a virtual machine either resuming or starting up from scratch. For me WinXP starts in about 15 seconds on a 2.16Ghz 2GB RAM or about 2 minutes if resuming. But that has NOTHING to do with Cocoa, QT, Carbon or what not. The difference between those frameworks in speed is in milliseconds and would have nothing to do with the above. Those would have everything to do with file writing to disk.
I can say that when Parallels has its VM Flags set to VM Cache as the primary caching logic, its disk speed is near native, but OS X apps slow down dramatically. Change that to Mac OS X primary caching logic and the VM's disk access slows down noticeably, but not horribly.
Sounds like you're not talking about Parallels starting up, but a virtual machine either resuming or starting up from scratch. For me WinXP starts in about 15 seconds on a 2.16Ghz 2GB RAM or about 2 minutes if resuming. But that has NOTHING to do with Cocoa, QT, Carbon or what not. The difference between those frameworks in speed is in milliseconds and would have nothing to do with the above. Those would have everything to do with file writing to disk.
I can say that when Parallels has its VM Flags set to VM Cache as the primary caching logic, its disk speed is near native, but OS X apps slow down dramatically. Change that to Mac OS X primary caching logic and the VM's disk access slows down noticeably, but not horribly.
countach
Oct 23, 07:54 AM
This is incorrect.
Microsoft's Vista EULA says:
4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
This means you can't use the *same* installation of Vista Home inside a virtualization technology on the licensed device.
This DOES NOT mean you can't use it by itself in a virtualization product on any platform.
The word "same" never occurs in the text, which never contemplates multiple installs.
It says you can't use it in a virtual machine. End of story. End of discussion.
Microsoft's Vista EULA says:
4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
This means you can't use the *same* installation of Vista Home inside a virtualization technology on the licensed device.
This DOES NOT mean you can't use it by itself in a virtualization product on any platform.
The word "same" never occurs in the text, which never contemplates multiple installs.
It says you can't use it in a virtual machine. End of story. End of discussion.
MacNut
May 2, 02:31 AM
Why?Islamic rule or something.
grahamnp
May 3, 08:56 AM
Not really sure why Apple can't bring themselves to put an i7 by default in a $2,000 machine. That's kind of ridiculous.
It annoys me too but it works out pretty well for Apple and I'd much rather pay extra for the i7 than not have the option at all. Look at the latest MBPs compared to the previous ones, Apple bumped the GPUs up significantly but charged $200 more and yet everyone is happy.
It annoys me too but it works out pretty well for Apple and I'd much rather pay extra for the i7 than not have the option at all. Look at the latest MBPs compared to the previous ones, Apple bumped the GPUs up significantly but charged $200 more and yet everyone is happy.
SAD*FACED*CLOWN
Apr 25, 08:10 AM
I hope this is true. A lot of people would go to T-Mobile because of their competitive pricing and that would encourage AT&T and Verizon to lower their prices too. Hell, I would consider switching.
nah Verizon and AT&T would furlough a couple of goons to go and see that Tmobile prices were brought up to their level...there is NO WAY TMobile will be allowed to undersale Verizon and AT&T...NO WAY...Tmobile, Sprint and whoever else you wanna name only has lower rates now because they are starved for new customers, losing old customers to Verizon and AT&T and they DON'T have an iPhone...
nah Verizon and AT&T would furlough a couple of goons to go and see that Tmobile prices were brought up to their level...there is NO WAY TMobile will be allowed to undersale Verizon and AT&T...NO WAY...Tmobile, Sprint and whoever else you wanna name only has lower rates now because they are starved for new customers, losing old customers to Verizon and AT&T and they DON'T have an iPhone...
iMeowbot
Dec 1, 03:00 PM
But if we agree that the development of a secure OS is all about utilizing sound design, coding and auditing processes, then we must also accept that the challenge will be very difficult for Apple to meet: You just cannot do that with Open Source...
Sure you can. What you can't do is grab stuff and assume that it does the right thing without checking it for yourself. That's equally true for software developed in house, or developed by subcontractors or commercial partners. It has little at all to do with public vs. private source code.
Sure you can. What you can't do is grab stuff and assume that it does the right thing without checking it for yourself. That's equally true for software developed in house, or developed by subcontractors or commercial partners. It has little at all to do with public vs. private source code.
DCJ001
Apr 22, 06:42 PM
I really don't see them adding the dual core chip to the iPhone or the iPod Touch, maybe an increase in processor speed but I think the more powerful processor is going to be reserved for the iPad now.
I'm sure that you are wrong.
I'm sure that you are wrong.
knownikko
Apr 22, 06:13 PM
do you know how dumb that is?
Yeah, it's totally dumb to think that a well-versed tech editor trying to launch a new company would know that the quickest way to get some eyeballs on pages is to spend hours making a pretty (controversial) iphone mockup and attaching it to an Apple rumor.
Ridiculously dumb.
Impossibly dumb.
Can't imagine what sort of dumb people would even suggest that.
So dumb.
Yeah, it's totally dumb to think that a well-versed tech editor trying to launch a new company would know that the quickest way to get some eyeballs on pages is to spend hours making a pretty (controversial) iphone mockup and attaching it to an Apple rumor.
Ridiculously dumb.
Impossibly dumb.
Can't imagine what sort of dumb people would even suggest that.
So dumb.
MacBoobsPro
Aug 15, 01:36 PM
I believe icerabbit was referring to a feature to restore an item to its original location once putting it in the trash. Windows has this feature in the recycle bin and it's a handy little feature.
This isn't to do with Time Machine as the user has not yet deleted the item from the Trash and the system.
Sorry IceRabbit i misread your post. My bad! :o
This isn't to do with Time Machine as the user has not yet deleted the item from the Trash and the system.
Sorry IceRabbit i misread your post. My bad! :o
kirk26
Apr 14, 02:44 PM
I'm noticing a little quicker general UI navigation, but the third party apps still don't show their launch animation unless opened first, exited, and then launched again. Only once loaded into the memory can you go from app to home screen to app and see the full animation.
Yet, oddly, Apple's stock apps are entirely unaffected.
Don't know what you mean by launch animation. Be gentle.
N/M
I opened Sirus, exited, opened FIFA 11, exited, went into Sirus again with no lag time. Is that what you are talking about?
Yet, oddly, Apple's stock apps are entirely unaffected.
Don't know what you mean by launch animation. Be gentle.
N/M
I opened Sirus, exited, opened FIFA 11, exited, went into Sirus again with no lag time. Is that what you are talking about?
No comments:
Post a Comment