Siemova
Jan 15, 02:47 PM
Great post Avatar74. I agree 100%.
Same here! Before coming to this thread, I just finished posting something very similar, only not as well-put. ^_^
Same here! Before coming to this thread, I just finished posting something very similar, only not as well-put. ^_^
Tarzanman
Mar 18, 12:52 AM
Blame Apple for the rivalry in the mobile arena.
They spend a lot of money brainwashing their customers into feeling like their choice in consumer products makes them better than people who use other products.
In a normal world, no one should give a rat's @ss what kind of phone you're making a phone call on but us non-iphone users had to put up with 2 years of iphone-users' fawining and bull---- about how awesome their phone was.
Its not surprising to me that there is now blowback as a result of Apple's marketing push.
They still do it today... look at the recent ipad2 press conference. Didn't the last slide say "2011: year of the copycat?" Which is ridiculous. Every product in the world has multiple manufacturers. TVs, bicycles, cars, toothbrushes, etc.... why should tablets be any different?
So, the next time someone gives you lip for using an Apple product remember that the money you give to Steve Jobs is helping fund the ill will.
You don't see Google going around bashing apple for no reason... but maybe because their CEO isn't a complete jerk like Jobs.
They spend a lot of money brainwashing their customers into feeling like their choice in consumer products makes them better than people who use other products.
In a normal world, no one should give a rat's @ss what kind of phone you're making a phone call on but us non-iphone users had to put up with 2 years of iphone-users' fawining and bull---- about how awesome their phone was.
Its not surprising to me that there is now blowback as a result of Apple's marketing push.
They still do it today... look at the recent ipad2 press conference. Didn't the last slide say "2011: year of the copycat?" Which is ridiculous. Every product in the world has multiple manufacturers. TVs, bicycles, cars, toothbrushes, etc.... why should tablets be any different?
So, the next time someone gives you lip for using an Apple product remember that the money you give to Steve Jobs is helping fund the ill will.
You don't see Google going around bashing apple for no reason... but maybe because their CEO isn't a complete jerk like Jobs.
FX120
Apr 9, 12:55 PM
Sounds like MS either is paying Adobe a small fee or they are done being scared. It is not like Acrobat reader is anything more than just a PDF reader. Something the OS as sorely needed built in.
I think that all changed when adobe was forced to publish the specifications for the PDF format a few years back.
My guess is that it has more to do with antitrust regulation, primarily in Europe. I'm surprised that they can even include a calculator as part of Windows and still sell it in the EU.
I think that all changed when adobe was forced to publish the specifications for the PDF format a few years back.
My guess is that it has more to do with antitrust regulation, primarily in Europe. I'm surprised that they can even include a calculator as part of Windows and still sell it in the EU.
AidenShaw
Nov 16, 08:50 PM
That would mean we'd have to pay more for intel machines. intel is giving apple big discounts for not using AMD at all.
This statement and variations, are repeated so often that they're taken for fact - but is there any corroboration of this from any source whatsoever?
I didn't think so....
Considering the anti-trust climate, the most that is likely is that there is an short term agreement that in return for the engineering help that Intel is giving Apple - Apple agrees to use only Intel chips.
Considering Apple's volume, their "discount" is probably very similar to what the other top 10 Intel OEMs are paying.
Intel can't afford to p#ss off their other OEMs by giving Apple preferential treatment for pricing and availability - but Intel can give Apple special help in the engineering area.
Apple could choose to give up the engineering support and use AMD chips whenever the agreement is up for renewal. But, as many have said, Intel's chips (and roadmap) are far better than AMD's roadmap right now....
This statement and variations, are repeated so often that they're taken for fact - but is there any corroboration of this from any source whatsoever?
I didn't think so....
Considering the anti-trust climate, the most that is likely is that there is an short term agreement that in return for the engineering help that Intel is giving Apple - Apple agrees to use only Intel chips.
Considering Apple's volume, their "discount" is probably very similar to what the other top 10 Intel OEMs are paying.
Intel can't afford to p#ss off their other OEMs by giving Apple preferential treatment for pricing and availability - but Intel can give Apple special help in the engineering area.
Apple could choose to give up the engineering support and use AMD chips whenever the agreement is up for renewal. But, as many have said, Intel's chips (and roadmap) are far better than AMD's roadmap right now....
more...
Aniej
Jan 5, 11:24 AM
And there you go!
twoodcc
Oct 17, 09:16 AM
i wouldn't mind seeing both blu-ray and hd-dvd in one computer :cool:
more...
Machead III
Sep 12, 07:54 AM
If they can't be burnt to DVD they're gonna have to be mad cheap.
slipper
Apr 25, 11:56 AM
iPhone nano mock-up?
http://zclee.com/random/iphonenano.jpg
http://zclee.com/random/iphonenano.jpg
more...
Earendil
Sep 27, 04:10 PM
After all of the comments about how great Aperture ran, and considering how crappy it was running on mine, I decided to take into the Apple Store.
The video card is defective and they are replacing it. No wonder my experience with the program stunk.
:)
My comments on having the video card do some heavy lifting, and how that's a good idea for the majority of users ,only applies to those that have a video card :rolleyes:
Without a video card I completely agree with you that it would be faster to use the 4 procs :D
The video card is defective and they are replacing it. No wonder my experience with the program stunk.
:)
My comments on having the video card do some heavy lifting, and how that's a good idea for the majority of users ,only applies to those that have a video card :rolleyes:
Without a video card I completely agree with you that it would be faster to use the 4 procs :D
aristobrat
Oct 6, 06:32 PM
I think the biggest problem is when Apple had the chance to change the game by not doing subizided cost they instead give in and just make it worse by forcing a much larger than average subsudize on there phone ($400 vs $250).
Unlock phones puts the network and the phone separete.
I'm not sure why you think Apple's original iPhone sales model was changing the game.
The customer paid the full price of the iPhone, the iPhone was still locked to a specific carrier, and the carrier agreed to pay Apple monthly for every iPhone customer they had.
On top of that, AT&T created a special, cheaper data plan to lure customers in, as the full-priced phone was very off-putting to some.
Sounds like the original iPhone ended up costing AT&T more than the subsidy on the iPhone 3G/3GS did.
And why did Apple change its original sales model? Because they weren't selling nearly as fast as Apple had hoped.
I agree with you that being able to buy any phone and have it work on any network would be awesome. Logistically, I just don't ever see it happening.
Unlock phones puts the network and the phone separete.
I'm not sure why you think Apple's original iPhone sales model was changing the game.
The customer paid the full price of the iPhone, the iPhone was still locked to a specific carrier, and the carrier agreed to pay Apple monthly for every iPhone customer they had.
On top of that, AT&T created a special, cheaper data plan to lure customers in, as the full-priced phone was very off-putting to some.
Sounds like the original iPhone ended up costing AT&T more than the subsidy on the iPhone 3G/3GS did.
And why did Apple change its original sales model? Because they weren't selling nearly as fast as Apple had hoped.
I agree with you that being able to buy any phone and have it work on any network would be awesome. Logistically, I just don't ever see it happening.
more...
longofest
Nov 16, 01:05 PM
please no page 1 vs page 2 comments... :)
one hundred dollar bill clip
more...
new 100 dollar bill back.
FIVE HUNDRED DOLLAR BILL
more...
hundred dollar bill clip art.
One Hundred Dollar Bills
more...
hundred dollar bill clip art.
lots of hundred dollar bills
hundred dollar bill clip art.
Reacent Post
c-ker
Dec 13, 07:32 PM
need more than a grain of salt for this. These rumours come and go all the time. I doubt it will happen. In the summer? yes, but not now
Maybe VZW will bundle their only current 4G device -- the Mi-FI gizmo -- with a 3G CDMA iPhone 4. Would be similar to what they are doing with the iPad.
Before you ask if VZW is stupid enough to do that, remember that VZW ninnies nixed the iPhone way back when.
Maybe VZW will bundle their only current 4G device -- the Mi-FI gizmo -- with a 3G CDMA iPhone 4. Would be similar to what they are doing with the iPad.
Before you ask if VZW is stupid enough to do that, remember that VZW ninnies nixed the iPhone way back when.
more...
Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:10 PM
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
NebulaClash
Apr 29, 02:07 PM
In another sense, the direction of the consumer PC/tablet/etc. will be where Apple takes it. They can play off of their successes with the iPad and iPhone and use that to shift the market to devices where Apple has a substantial amount of IP, experience, and expertise. It's one thing to be an alternative, as opposed to a shift where everything else becomes a (less desirable) alternative. That's where Apple is trying to go. Obviously not everyone agrees, but they have thus far made substantial inroads. Apple is increasingly a consumer-focussed company, so the utility of an interface in OS X, for instance, may suffer in it's usability for the "power user." It's hard to say though how much compromise will be made, as the dramatic changes in Final Cut Pro's upcoming release indicate a continued commitment to at least one sub-group of power users.
Yes, and given how much copying is going on with other companies, I'd say Apple is being quite successful in getting their gestures to become a standard. Pinch to zoom is now almost universal.
I have to laugh at the people worried that one day Apple will cut off software access in OS X. Apple said they won't do that. That would be bad for business. It makes no sense.
Yes, and given how much copying is going on with other companies, I'd say Apple is being quite successful in getting their gestures to become a standard. Pinch to zoom is now almost universal.
I have to laugh at the people worried that one day Apple will cut off software access in OS X. Apple said they won't do that. That would be bad for business. It makes no sense.
more...
Rocketman
Oct 10, 05:55 PM
Nope... we're thinking this will be a totally different iPod product, separate from the normal iPod or the nano or the shuffle.
On the wireless topic, isn't there a faster or larger range or higher bandwidth Bluetooth now?
If they would only make it about 3/16" thicker, the hard drive could have double the platters.
Rocketman
On the wireless topic, isn't there a faster or larger range or higher bandwidth Bluetooth now?
If they would only make it about 3/16" thicker, the hard drive could have double the platters.
Rocketman
Tampa Tom
May 4, 07:08 AM
....
One of Apple's HUGE advantages over Android based devices is that all iOS devices can use the same OS and they all get upgraded at the same time.
Obviously you haven't tried to run iOS 4 and above on an iPhone 3G. While it does limp along, it is not a good user experience.
One of Apple's HUGE advantages over Android based devices is that all iOS devices can use the same OS and they all get upgraded at the same time.
Obviously you haven't tried to run iOS 4 and above on an iPhone 3G. While it does limp along, it is not a good user experience.
more...
css1323
May 2, 12:10 PM
I know I'm late in this thread.. but, the supposed battery life improvements, is that simply the result of iOS no longer tracking so much information? Or is it the result of real unrelated improvements?
iguanarama
Jul 21, 10:24 AM
I love that they do the video of the Nokia with the battery showing almost empty. :)
dubels
Apr 11, 07:35 PM
Sharks playoff tickets against the Kings 4/16
http://sharkspage.com/jpgs4/sharks_territory.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5185/5611814286_62d5df7613.jpg
http://sharkspage.com/jpgs4/sharks_territory.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5185/5611814286_62d5df7613.jpg
Schmye Bubbula
Mar 25, 12:57 PM
I don't think I've ever seen such a consistent troll on any forum."Consistent" is an understatement.If you think that John Siracusa (or citations thereto) is a troll, then your ignorance is breathtaking. (The absence of your actually addressing the issue at hand in lieu of ad hominem attacks is conspicuous and dubious.)
chrmjenkins
Apr 15, 03:44 PM
What gives the bad impression is that, since is a 3D rendering, it doesn't have lens distortion (because the guy "forgot" about it). Real lenses always gives you some barrel distortion because they are curved, and the standard camera in a 3D software is always just straight 3 point perspective. When you put it in an angle that gives too much perspective it looks strange.
Specially the first image, is a good 3D, but is not realistic enough to be perceived as a photo because of:
1- Lack of lens distortion
2- Very linear noise, obviously applied.
3- Un-natural light
4- Not so realistic dynamic range and exposure
5- Shadows are too smooth for that kind of flash-light
6- Light is too uniform
7- The model is good, but you can see that there are some hard edges that are not natural.
8- Doesn't have any camera meta-data. (he "forgot" to fake that also)
and a few other minor things... but yeah, it's a very good 3D work!:)
if you want to do a little test with your abilities to tell if it's cg or not:
http://area.autodesk.com/fakeorfoto/challenge
a little to easy though... ;)
I got 11 of 12 (the bear), so I trust my own judgment that this is fake as can be.
It can't be all metal. Otherwise it will have some serious signal issues.
The titanium iphone mod shows it can be done. http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/the-titanium-iphone-is-real-really-real-video/
Specially the first image, is a good 3D, but is not realistic enough to be perceived as a photo because of:
1- Lack of lens distortion
2- Very linear noise, obviously applied.
3- Un-natural light
4- Not so realistic dynamic range and exposure
5- Shadows are too smooth for that kind of flash-light
6- Light is too uniform
7- The model is good, but you can see that there are some hard edges that are not natural.
8- Doesn't have any camera meta-data. (he "forgot" to fake that also)
and a few other minor things... but yeah, it's a very good 3D work!:)
if you want to do a little test with your abilities to tell if it's cg or not:
http://area.autodesk.com/fakeorfoto/challenge
a little to easy though... ;)
I got 11 of 12 (the bear), so I trust my own judgment that this is fake as can be.
It can't be all metal. Otherwise it will have some serious signal issues.
The titanium iphone mod shows it can be done. http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/the-titanium-iphone-is-real-really-real-video/
slamshut
Oct 6, 11:20 AM
Ill tell you this they are better then sprint and t-mobile as far as verizon it they had the iphone im pretty sure they will have issues with there network. For all the data traffic that att handle now they can do way better, but like i said there are worse carriers out there.
Al Coholic
Apr 8, 12:58 PM
Oh crap. 400 fear-mongering posts in the other thread were for naught. :eek:
LOL!
Come on people, think next time. Like Apple gives a rat's ass how their retailers horde iPads when Apple themselves can't even supply them.
LOL!
Come on people, think next time. Like Apple gives a rat's ass how their retailers horde iPads when Apple themselves can't even supply them.
Patrick J
Apr 15, 04:03 PM
In the second picture, it seems like whoever was doing the editing couldn't quite get the text in the right position. It looks completely off, kinda in a downward slant to the right.
http://www.cheeplinux.com/images/bugfeaturemug.jpe
http://www.cheeplinux.com/images/bugfeaturemug.jpe
0 comments:
Post a Comment