Dreadnought
May 30, 03:33 PM
Redeye, I don't know what happend, but I have a missing picture in the folding widget. I did drop a place this week.
zap2
May 5, 09:54 PM
I'm upset that the compared the 11'' Air to such low end Windows boxes, I'm disappointed as I wanted to see some nice Windows ultraportables.
Seriously? A few MB's of RAM saved is worth over double the price? I'm not bashing Apple here, I love my Mac and I love OS X, but Windows 7 with an antivirus runs a hell of a lot smoother on my iMac than Snow Leopard does. When you take that into account, it pales into insignificance does running an antivirus.
Not to mention that plenty of OS X users now use an antivirus, despite there being no real need to.
Mentioning many OS X users use antivirus is useless, as anyone is in the conversation is able to decide not to run antivirus on OS X.
As for greater performance on OS X vs Windows 7 you'd need to compare software on both platforms, but since the best things on OS X don't run on Windows 7, I can't see many comparisons worth wild. (although this is personal, if you want Windows 7 software, go for it!)
Seriously? A few MB's of RAM saved is worth over double the price? I'm not bashing Apple here, I love my Mac and I love OS X, but Windows 7 with an antivirus runs a hell of a lot smoother on my iMac than Snow Leopard does. When you take that into account, it pales into insignificance does running an antivirus.
Not to mention that plenty of OS X users now use an antivirus, despite there being no real need to.
Mentioning many OS X users use antivirus is useless, as anyone is in the conversation is able to decide not to run antivirus on OS X.
As for greater performance on OS X vs Windows 7 you'd need to compare software on both platforms, but since the best things on OS X don't run on Windows 7, I can't see many comparisons worth wild. (although this is personal, if you want Windows 7 software, go for it!)
vistadude
Mar 31, 01:29 AM
Okay, figured out the conflict. Please delete this thread mods.
studiomusic
Nov 17, 08:45 PM
So a 17 year old can do it but a gigantic company with $50 billion lying there can't. Seems logical to me. :rolleyes:
Wake up Steve. Seriously.
There's quite a difference between supplying 450 kits and selling 4-5 million white phones.
Wake up Steve. Seriously.
There's quite a difference between supplying 450 kits and selling 4-5 million white phones.
more...
kingdonk
Feb 28, 07:00 PM
more
kmcrawford
Jan 6, 05:49 PM
Any know why some users photos don't sync? My photo doesn't show up on my wife's phone, but many of her friends photos' do.
btw, I have seen other info posted like my friend's Sister's name and etc.
btw, I have seen other info posted like my friend's Sister's name and etc.
more...
alent1234
Dec 28, 07:15 AM
the Consumerist was recently bought by Consumer's Union. The "non profit" organization that sells the magazine Consumer's Reports. the same rag that has different testing standards for different products to push the snobby/elite/more expensive ones.
last year they tested some child car seats differently to say the cheaper ones were deadly
last year they tested some child car seats differently to say the cheaper ones were deadly
Polo5
Oct 6, 10:00 AM
Really? that would be interesting
more...
rhett7660
Apr 8, 12:00 AM
50 billion out of a budget of what? A trillion and a bit? What's really ridiculous is all the petty bitching coming out of DC over what amounts to less than 5% of the total. The Titanic is hit and two engineers are fighting over whether or not to turn on one pump.
If the government "shuts down", not much will change. Life will continue.
Not if you count on your paychecks coming from them. Life will continue sure, but it will be a hell of a lot harder.
This has happened before and it is crap anyway you look at.
If the government "shuts down", not much will change. Life will continue.
Not if you count on your paychecks coming from them. Life will continue sure, but it will be a hell of a lot harder.
This has happened before and it is crap anyway you look at.
Nym
Nov 14, 01:06 PM
It's not offensive, it's a point of view, I myself think that "some" religions are full of crap and tell people to live their lives in fear and in denial of our greatest joys (just look at some "religions" point of view towards sex for example).
When I say I'm an Atheist it means I take no part in the religions game, I have no religion because I don't believe in a superior being (although I respect people's beliefs).
And yes, I consider Catholicism (the Vatican institution for example) an hypocrisy, or do you really think you'll ever see a black man or a woman become a Pope? Probably not. (it's just an example)
No one has the right to tell me what my opinion should be, Catholics probably think I'll go to hell for not believing in god and I respect that.
I just like to separate myself from everything bad that's being done in the name of religion these days and throughout history (censorship, terrorist attacks, "holy" wars against the middle east, the crusades, inquisition, and the list goes on...)
Most religions have a "beautiful" basis, but they're distorted by man, just look at Catholicism, Christ always said to aid the next man but you look at the Vatican and it's all spewing wealthiness and everything decorated in gold while more than half the world lives in complete misery, I can't pact with that.
Edit : I have no hate for you or your country, I haven't got hate for anyone, life's too short, but you're first post (Mike) sounded like others people religions were less than yours. Maybe I got it wrong.
And I know of course that African countries enslave their own people, hell, my own country killed a lot of natives in Brasil and Africa, I'm not saying it was only the American ones, doesn't mean I think it's right.
And yes, the constitution was created (like any other big social change) because the oppressed started to rebel, not by the goodness of the white man. A lot of people died fighting for equal rights, the constitution wasn't handed on a plate.
PS - I don't know half the religions in this world so I'm basing my opinion on the religions I do know and that prevail in my country.
When I say I'm an Atheist it means I take no part in the religions game, I have no religion because I don't believe in a superior being (although I respect people's beliefs).
And yes, I consider Catholicism (the Vatican institution for example) an hypocrisy, or do you really think you'll ever see a black man or a woman become a Pope? Probably not. (it's just an example)
No one has the right to tell me what my opinion should be, Catholics probably think I'll go to hell for not believing in god and I respect that.
I just like to separate myself from everything bad that's being done in the name of religion these days and throughout history (censorship, terrorist attacks, "holy" wars against the middle east, the crusades, inquisition, and the list goes on...)
Most religions have a "beautiful" basis, but they're distorted by man, just look at Catholicism, Christ always said to aid the next man but you look at the Vatican and it's all spewing wealthiness and everything decorated in gold while more than half the world lives in complete misery, I can't pact with that.
Edit : I have no hate for you or your country, I haven't got hate for anyone, life's too short, but you're first post (Mike) sounded like others people religions were less than yours. Maybe I got it wrong.
And I know of course that African countries enslave their own people, hell, my own country killed a lot of natives in Brasil and Africa, I'm not saying it was only the American ones, doesn't mean I think it's right.
And yes, the constitution was created (like any other big social change) because the oppressed started to rebel, not by the goodness of the white man. A lot of people died fighting for equal rights, the constitution wasn't handed on a plate.
PS - I don't know half the religions in this world so I'm basing my opinion on the religions I do know and that prevail in my country.
more...
Eidorian
Apr 5, 04:53 PM
Now we are playing with power.
NewSc2
Oct 9, 04:16 PM
hm, wait, people don't already download movies??
**hides torrents**
**hides torrents**
more...
Lacero
Sep 18, 09:19 PM
I think you have a better chance of dating Emily Rossum than this Apple store girl. :p
Big D 51
May 5, 12:04 PM
Good move.
more...
bdj21ya
Oct 16, 06:51 PM
^ Yeah, how about voicemail? If its that important they'll leave a message. Shoot sometimes I even turn off my cell *GASP!* Dude, you need to go camping once in a while and get away from the world.
In my opinion, I don't think the "iPhone" will have more than 1GB just so that it wouldn't affect the sales of the lower capacity Nanos (the shuffle is an exception because its tiny and has a relatively lower concept).
I think that 1GB would be stupid. That's what's been holding back Music phones the most in my opinion.
In my opinion, I don't think the "iPhone" will have more than 1GB just so that it wouldn't affect the sales of the lower capacity Nanos (the shuffle is an exception because its tiny and has a relatively lower concept).
I think that 1GB would be stupid. That's what's been holding back Music phones the most in my opinion.
SteveRichardson
Aug 14, 01:37 PM
You are wrong.
Proven by Apples rising market share.;)
You cant keep saying that these ads are hurting apple if they keep selling more and more computers.
It makes no sense.:confused:
Not because of these commercials.
Proven by Apples rising market share.;)
You cant keep saying that these ads are hurting apple if they keep selling more and more computers.
It makes no sense.:confused:
Not because of these commercials.
more...
bayxsonic
Mar 28, 02:59 PM
This is going to be great, absolutely, but forget to pay only a $99 premium for this feature. TVs with Internet access and AirPlay capabilities are going to be overpriced for a couple years. Then the technology will either have failed and retired from TVs or it will be in every or so TV. Now I just wish I could have a cheap audio AirPlay receiver to connect my speakers to ($40 anyone?)
foulmouthedleon
Apr 27, 10:54 AM
Backlit keyboard. It wouldn't be so much of a big deal if they didn't have it to begin with, then they removed that option. If they bring it back, I'll get rid of my MBP and go back to an Air.
nostaws
Oct 9, 03:18 PM
Of course they are less expensive. No packaging, no media, no store space, no shipping required.
They should be less expensive.
If they were the same price this would be a serious problem. I still have a problem at the outrageous prices of CDs and DVDs because they are more expnsive than cassettes were, but cheaper to produce. It is all about greed and $$.
Apple wants to make money too. but they eliminated some considerable costs.
They should be less expensive.
If they were the same price this would be a serious problem. I still have a problem at the outrageous prices of CDs and DVDs because they are more expnsive than cassettes were, but cheaper to produce. It is all about greed and $$.
Apple wants to make money too. but they eliminated some considerable costs.
thatisme
Mar 29, 08:42 AM
no manufacturer uses effective focal lengths to refer to lenses for dslrs (e. g. it's a 17-55 mm f/2.8 lens and not a 27-88 mm f/2.8 (equiv.) lens), be it a lens tailored for crop lenses or otherwise, but always the physical focal length.
Correct. Your lens is based in 35mm terms. So by utilizing a less than 35mm sensor'd camera, you are not using the full 35mm image being projected which is where this 1.6 factor comes into play.
Where RobbieDuncan is missing the boat, and most that are arguing incorrectly is that the image will be the same using an EF lens on either a 1.6 sensor'd camera or a FF sensor'd camera. The end result is that it will not. Focal length of the lens has not changed, but your image has.
For the EF-S lenses, since the rear element is smaller, your image circle is smaller, and is tailored to the 1.6 sensors... agreed? Ok. How can this now apply to 35mm? you don't have a full 35mm image circle projected through the lens. So apply your FOVCF to the actual focal length and you will get a hypothetical, imaginary number that equated to 35mm. But since your lens elements cant transmit a full 35mm image, then the argument goes out the window.
What does happen, as indicated by the linked image earlier whereby the 5D was modified to accept an EF-S lens, the image is not complete. Not enough image is sent through the optics of the lens. This shows exactly what my argument has been all along.... the image will be different. What a 1.6 camera is doing is taking that sample image, but only recording the center of it. So, Effectively, it is a zoomed image. So the Effective Focal Length for that image is bigger... say 50mm, where the lens may have been an EF-S 35mm.
Correct. Your lens is based in 35mm terms. So by utilizing a less than 35mm sensor'd camera, you are not using the full 35mm image being projected which is where this 1.6 factor comes into play.
Where RobbieDuncan is missing the boat, and most that are arguing incorrectly is that the image will be the same using an EF lens on either a 1.6 sensor'd camera or a FF sensor'd camera. The end result is that it will not. Focal length of the lens has not changed, but your image has.
For the EF-S lenses, since the rear element is smaller, your image circle is smaller, and is tailored to the 1.6 sensors... agreed? Ok. How can this now apply to 35mm? you don't have a full 35mm image circle projected through the lens. So apply your FOVCF to the actual focal length and you will get a hypothetical, imaginary number that equated to 35mm. But since your lens elements cant transmit a full 35mm image, then the argument goes out the window.
What does happen, as indicated by the linked image earlier whereby the 5D was modified to accept an EF-S lens, the image is not complete. Not enough image is sent through the optics of the lens. This shows exactly what my argument has been all along.... the image will be different. What a 1.6 camera is doing is taking that sample image, but only recording the center of it. So, Effectively, it is a zoomed image. So the Effective Focal Length for that image is bigger... say 50mm, where the lens may have been an EF-S 35mm.
animatedude
Apr 24, 05:21 AM
IRS sensor to use or the Apple Remote.
Mark Booth
Apr 1, 09:53 AM
Just buy a Slingbox and watch any channel you want, anywhere you want.
Ditto! Slingbox rocks! And it's even more fun when you have a friend or two in other states that allow you to use their Slingbox to watch events that are blacked out in your own area. :)
Mark
Ditto! Slingbox rocks! And it's even more fun when you have a friend or two in other states that allow you to use their Slingbox to watch events that are blacked out in your own area. :)
Mark
louis Fashion
Mar 27, 02:45 PM
Typical of a company that has no business model right now; become a patent troll. Kind of a shame, Kodak used to be a great company, but they got left behind by the digital revolution.
Hey if they win this one, they will make 1B this year!!!
Hey if they win this one, they will make 1B this year!!!
robodweeb
Sep 19, 09:09 PM
Ask folks at Nasa who do the real work with computers
...
Windows has 95 % of share
Until a year ago, I was the lead Mac systems engineer for one of the largest outsourcing vendors supporting five NASA field centers. These centers were the research centers, not the operational centers (a different vendor suppoorted them). Just as a tidbit, when I left, the share of Macs at these centers was about 28% (Windows ~63%, the rest Linux/Unix, DEC, etc.). Admittedly, this was down about 3-4% over the previous 3 years. One center, NASA Ames, was around 80% Mac. Sadly, this information doesn't get propagated as widely as, say, the improper removal of Macs from NASA Johnson a few years back.
g-rock2K is correct that OS X is being embraced by the scientific and engineering community within NASA, largely because there are ports of computationally-intensive visualization and analysis applications available for OS X and the results can be easily moved into presentation applications. This last par tis significant, I believe, because they have access to faster computers (parallel systems, clusters, etc.) but such computers don't have much support for the presentation and sharing of the results. Clearly, the power of the G4 contributes to its lure, but it's the combination of OS X and the G4 that is selling Macs at NASA. It's not so much how fast they can do individual, specific tasks (which, sadly, are about all that's tested by benchmarks) but how OS X on G4s enables them to do their entire job more quickly, not just the bits and pieces ...
cheerz!
...
Windows has 95 % of share
Until a year ago, I was the lead Mac systems engineer for one of the largest outsourcing vendors supporting five NASA field centers. These centers were the research centers, not the operational centers (a different vendor suppoorted them). Just as a tidbit, when I left, the share of Macs at these centers was about 28% (Windows ~63%, the rest Linux/Unix, DEC, etc.). Admittedly, this was down about 3-4% over the previous 3 years. One center, NASA Ames, was around 80% Mac. Sadly, this information doesn't get propagated as widely as, say, the improper removal of Macs from NASA Johnson a few years back.
g-rock2K is correct that OS X is being embraced by the scientific and engineering community within NASA, largely because there are ports of computationally-intensive visualization and analysis applications available for OS X and the results can be easily moved into presentation applications. This last par tis significant, I believe, because they have access to faster computers (parallel systems, clusters, etc.) but such computers don't have much support for the presentation and sharing of the results. Clearly, the power of the G4 contributes to its lure, but it's the combination of OS X and the G4 that is selling Macs at NASA. It's not so much how fast they can do individual, specific tasks (which, sadly, are about all that's tested by benchmarks) but how OS X on G4s enables them to do their entire job more quickly, not just the bits and pieces ...
cheerz!
0 comments:
Post a Comment