Zadillo
Aug 27, 04:50 PM
Another person who grasps it.
Again, come on now...... it's not a question of whether people grasp it. It's question of who finds it funny and who doesn't. It's possible to "grasp" a joke and still not find it funny once it has been done to death. Just because someone doesn't think it is funny doesn't mean you have to insult their intelligence by saying they just don't "grasp" it.
Again, come on now...... it's not a question of whether people grasp it. It's question of who finds it funny and who doesn't. It's possible to "grasp" a joke and still not find it funny once it has been done to death. Just because someone doesn't think it is funny doesn't mean you have to insult their intelligence by saying they just don't "grasp" it.
sysiphus
Mar 21, 12:37 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
2012 Honda Civic Si Coupe
2012 Honda Civic Lineup
2012 honda civic si
2012 Honda Civic coming in
honda Civic Si Concept
Honda Civic MUGEN Si Sedan
Honda Civic Mugen Si Sedan
Honda Civic Si Coupe Concept
2011 Honda Civic Si sedan
Back to 2012 Honda Civic Si
2012 Honda Civic Si sedan
2012 Honda Civic Si Sedan
2012 honda civic si sedan.
2012 Honda Civic Si Sedan Rear
2012 Honda Civic Si Sedan Rear
2012 honda civic si sedan.
2012 Hond Civic Si Sedan
Elvin77
Mar 22, 01:24 PM
Blackberry playbook = The IPad 2 killer - you heard it here first.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
1) Battery life IS a big deal
2) Are we forgetting about apps? The best hardware in the world is useless unless there are apps to make it sing. A $200 tablet can surf the web just as good as the playbook.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
1) Battery life IS a big deal
2) Are we forgetting about apps? The best hardware in the world is useless unless there are apps to make it sing. A $200 tablet can surf the web just as good as the playbook.
hulugu
Mar 22, 12:05 AM
It's hard to argue against sysiphus's summary. The depressing corollary to that is, I don't see any realistically electable candidates on the horizon who can improve on Obama. Presidents have become more alike over time. Perhaps that is because the US is so out of step with the rest of the world that all presidents find themselves involved in similar international adventures.
It will be interesting to see how Obama handles the next phase of the the situation, as he has promised to "tone down" US military involvement in Libya. Unlike Iraq, there is an opposition movement in-country and there is no invasion. So while I'm disappointed that we are involved in yet another conflict in the middle east, this one stands a better chance of aiding a legitimate opposition movement in removing a dictator rather than creating another tragic, expensive mess.
I agree. The Democrats will, of course, push Obama for a second-term and thus our opposition candidates are all GOP, none of whom are serious contenders for improving our present situation.
If I read the Obama administration correctly, the US involvement will be very limited and while "advisors" are certainly on the ground�I be amazed if there weren't forward-air controllers and Green Berets in Libya�the US's role will remain very limited. Like the Gulf War, we will let our Arab League allies be the first ones across the border, and give the security operations to the French and British.
It will be interesting to see how Obama handles the next phase of the the situation, as he has promised to "tone down" US military involvement in Libya. Unlike Iraq, there is an opposition movement in-country and there is no invasion. So while I'm disappointed that we are involved in yet another conflict in the middle east, this one stands a better chance of aiding a legitimate opposition movement in removing a dictator rather than creating another tragic, expensive mess.
I agree. The Democrats will, of course, push Obama for a second-term and thus our opposition candidates are all GOP, none of whom are serious contenders for improving our present situation.
If I read the Obama administration correctly, the US involvement will be very limited and while "advisors" are certainly on the ground�I be amazed if there weren't forward-air controllers and Green Berets in Libya�the US's role will remain very limited. Like the Gulf War, we will let our Arab League allies be the first ones across the border, and give the security operations to the French and British.
rdowns
Apr 27, 02:10 PM
OK, let's move onto Obama's grades. When Obama caves and releases those, citing more important issues we need to deal with, the press will then go after his professors and classmates. What else will the wingnuts ask for?
Nuck81
Aug 13, 12:21 AM
It's refreshing that I don't have to go to gamespot forums to see a pointless immature fanboy pissing match :rolleyes:
fithian
Apr 8, 07:55 AM
Just for entertainment, go to a Worst Buy and sidle up to a sales guy giving his pitch to an unsuspecting victim. I only ever go there to see a model in person before ordering online or elsewhere. I do purchase items at local stores who respect the customer and don't tell blatant lies about the products.
paul4339
Mar 22, 01:00 PM
Unfortunately you're so very right. Until it's in the hand and on the shelves it's vaporware.
...
Yes, I think they should at least have a model that they can 'power on' before they say that it's going to be released on June 8 (that's just over 2 months away to get it working and out the door!)
P.
...
Yes, I think they should at least have a model that they can 'power on' before they say that it's going to be released on June 8 (that's just over 2 months away to get it working and out the door!)
P.
Thunderbird
Aug 7, 04:41 PM
So the cat won't be out of the bag until Spring 2007?
I thought Leopard was slated for December?
Maybe that means it will actually be launched at MWSF in January
I wonder if this is a case of Redmond playing chicken with Cuppertino...
Microsoft: "We're late, so show us your O/S first."
Apple: "Sorry, not until December. But feel free to release yours first"
Microsoft: "We've delayed till March, so you go first"
Apple: "Well, we've delayed till Spring too, so you go ahead."
:D
I thought Leopard was slated for December?
Maybe that means it will actually be launched at MWSF in January
I wonder if this is a case of Redmond playing chicken with Cuppertino...
Microsoft: "We're late, so show us your O/S first."
Apple: "Sorry, not until December. But feel free to release yours first"
Microsoft: "We've delayed till March, so you go first"
Apple: "Well, we've delayed till Spring too, so you go ahead."
:D
robotx21
Sep 19, 12:51 PM
I'm kinda glad they didn't release the macbook pro's today. All that means, if they are released next week, it will be more than just a minor update :-D Here's to hoping!
mozmac
Nov 29, 09:21 AM
Dirty mother farters. How dare you try to claim a share of the music players. You see, they do more than just music. Would if someone bought one without putting any music on it!
littleman23408
Dec 4, 04:59 PM
A-spec level 19. Haven't played it for a week now, maybe I should play this weekend and get it to 25.
I think I got mine up to 16 or 17 last night. Finished the second license with all gold, started a bspec driver, and did some other things.
yep im pretty sure thats what i saw! pretty cool this game
my PSN name is psychofetus
Awesome, I sent you a friend request. Edit: I received your friend request.
I think I got mine up to 16 or 17 last night. Finished the second license with all gold, started a bspec driver, and did some other things.
yep im pretty sure thats what i saw! pretty cool this game
my PSN name is psychofetus
Awesome, I sent you a friend request. Edit: I received your friend request.
Buschmaster
Nov 29, 09:20 AM
No thanks.
I pay for my music.
Oh, according to them, you must have a Zune. Because everyone who doesn't use a Zune steals music.
This news makes me want to go steal Universal junk I don't even like.
I pay for my music.
Oh, according to them, you must have a Zune. Because everyone who doesn't use a Zune steals music.
This news makes me want to go steal Universal junk I don't even like.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 3, 10:05 AM
And I don't see the point in being sexually attracted to anyone of the opposite sex, but since society tells me it's "normal" I live with it nonetheless. It's all a matter of perception and experience. You have yours, I have mine and they're both normal to us.
Sure, different people have different experiences. That's partly why some people feel same-sex attractions and why others feel opposite-sex attractions. Macaroony doesn't see any point in opposite-sex attractions. I don't see any point in same-sex attractions. Here are two videos that explain what I believe about why some people feel same-sex attractions. I think the speaker works for NARTH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAJXvxcGrk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UziWSdC8Zhw&feature=related
Pedophilia is immoral - no matter man or woman. Please do not put both homosexuality and pedophilia into the same boat. There are plenty of grown men who abuse underage girls, it's when they happen to be gay that elevates the problem and lazily ties it to homosexuality.
Just as no one chooses to feel same-sex attractions, no one chooses to be a pedophile. I know some pedophiles. But some pedophiles do choose to molest children. I don't want to conflate pedophilia and immoral actions that some pedophiles do because they're pedophiles.
Many people ignore the difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. Many Christians insist that homosexuality is immoral. But homosexuality is a property, not an action. Nor is it a sin of omission. Homosexuality the property is morally indifferent. Homosexual acts are, I think, immoral. An action can be immoral, even if someone doesn't deserve any blame for doing it.
No, I shouldn't put homosexuality and pedophilia in the same boat. I mentioned the Catholic Church's homosexual-abuse because skunk seems to think my opinions about sexual morality are feelings, not beliefs that are either true or false. Even psychotherapists I've talked with have agreed that feelings are neither truths nor falsehoods. Feelings are neither of those, but there are truths about feelings and there are falsehoods about them. If I only feel that homosexual acts are immoral, should some government outlaw feeling that way?
The phrase "a fact" is ambiguous. It can mean "a truth." It can also mean "a set of actual set of circumstances." There are truths about feelings, and there are feelings about truths. But my feelings aren't truths. Even if moral relativism is true, there are still objective truths about whether some society or other considers some action morally acceptable. And some relativists still hold a self-inconsistent belief when they believe that since every belief is relative to some context or other, there's no such thing as absolute truth. In one sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true about every context. In that sense of the phrase "absolute truth," I imply a self-contradiction myself when I say that since every truth is relative to some context or other, I imply that it's an absolute truth that there's no absolute truth.
In another sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true whether anyone believes it or not. Even if I'm mistaken when I believe that homosexual sex is gravely immoral, it's still true that either they're moral or not moral.
Too often, people who feel same-sex attractions suffer needlessly partly because they, others, or both ignore important distinctions. Unfortunately, people often ignore them when their feelings determine too much of what those people believe.
Immoral behavior continues partly because of moral relativism. Instead of conforming our minds to reality, we try to conform reality to our minds. Moral relativists talk as though an action is moral if and only if someone believes that it's moral. Some moral relativists even insist that if you believe that homosexual acts are morally acceptable, and I believe they're immoral, then we're both right. A moral relativist might say the same about the morality or immorality of gay-bashing. But someone is right when he thinks that gay-bashing is morally right, should a court punish him for gay-bashing someone?
Sure, different people have different experiences. That's partly why some people feel same-sex attractions and why others feel opposite-sex attractions. Macaroony doesn't see any point in opposite-sex attractions. I don't see any point in same-sex attractions. Here are two videos that explain what I believe about why some people feel same-sex attractions. I think the speaker works for NARTH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAJXvxcGrk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UziWSdC8Zhw&feature=related
Pedophilia is immoral - no matter man or woman. Please do not put both homosexuality and pedophilia into the same boat. There are plenty of grown men who abuse underage girls, it's when they happen to be gay that elevates the problem and lazily ties it to homosexuality.
Just as no one chooses to feel same-sex attractions, no one chooses to be a pedophile. I know some pedophiles. But some pedophiles do choose to molest children. I don't want to conflate pedophilia and immoral actions that some pedophiles do because they're pedophiles.
Many people ignore the difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. Many Christians insist that homosexuality is immoral. But homosexuality is a property, not an action. Nor is it a sin of omission. Homosexuality the property is morally indifferent. Homosexual acts are, I think, immoral. An action can be immoral, even if someone doesn't deserve any blame for doing it.
No, I shouldn't put homosexuality and pedophilia in the same boat. I mentioned the Catholic Church's homosexual-abuse because skunk seems to think my opinions about sexual morality are feelings, not beliefs that are either true or false. Even psychotherapists I've talked with have agreed that feelings are neither truths nor falsehoods. Feelings are neither of those, but there are truths about feelings and there are falsehoods about them. If I only feel that homosexual acts are immoral, should some government outlaw feeling that way?
The phrase "a fact" is ambiguous. It can mean "a truth." It can also mean "a set of actual set of circumstances." There are truths about feelings, and there are feelings about truths. But my feelings aren't truths. Even if moral relativism is true, there are still objective truths about whether some society or other considers some action morally acceptable. And some relativists still hold a self-inconsistent belief when they believe that since every belief is relative to some context or other, there's no such thing as absolute truth. In one sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true about every context. In that sense of the phrase "absolute truth," I imply a self-contradiction myself when I say that since every truth is relative to some context or other, I imply that it's an absolute truth that there's no absolute truth.
In another sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true whether anyone believes it or not. Even if I'm mistaken when I believe that homosexual sex is gravely immoral, it's still true that either they're moral or not moral.
Too often, people who feel same-sex attractions suffer needlessly partly because they, others, or both ignore important distinctions. Unfortunately, people often ignore them when their feelings determine too much of what those people believe.
Immoral behavior continues partly because of moral relativism. Instead of conforming our minds to reality, we try to conform reality to our minds. Moral relativists talk as though an action is moral if and only if someone believes that it's moral. Some moral relativists even insist that if you believe that homosexual acts are morally acceptable, and I believe they're immoral, then we're both right. A moral relativist might say the same about the morality or immorality of gay-bashing. But someone is right when he thinks that gay-bashing is morally right, should a court punish him for gay-bashing someone?
jmbear
Nov 29, 12:39 PM
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
fatfish
Aug 7, 09:06 PM
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.
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.
BeefUK
Jul 27, 09:59 AM
Merom in a macbook is all I want, add in 2GB of RAM, and that'll do me. Although they'll be released in the MBP first............looks like more waiting for my first mac!!!:(
PLEASE PLEASE hurry, I wanna get rid of my PC. The case in like a wind turbine and the CRT monitor is like a heater!
PLEASE PLEASE hurry, I wanna get rid of my PC. The case in like a wind turbine and the CRT monitor is like a heater!
finchna
Sep 19, 08:28 AM
What a non-story. Basically no performance increases except for slightly faster chips. No other improvements mentioned. How about FW800 for 15", how about DL for 15", this is simply a money maker. :(
Mr. Retrofire
Apr 6, 07:54 PM
Let me be clear - FCS needs a robust blu-ray authoring feature.
Useless without error correcting reference hardware/software. No one has seen this reference hardware or drivers for it in the Apple environment. Only a few specialized companies use the expensive reference hardware for true BD-authoring. It is the same situation as on the Audio-CD market.
Btw, Sonys BluPrint 6 (http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/bluprint) software costs 80.000 US$. And this is just the software. I do not think we will see similar features in FCP or FCS.
Useless without error correcting reference hardware/software. No one has seen this reference hardware or drivers for it in the Apple environment. Only a few specialized companies use the expensive reference hardware for true BD-authoring. It is the same situation as on the Audio-CD market.
Btw, Sonys BluPrint 6 (http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/bluprint) software costs 80.000 US$. And this is just the software. I do not think we will see similar features in FCP or FCS.
newyorksole
Apr 11, 02:52 PM
Honestly, I don't mind waiting. The iPhone 4 is a BEAUTIFUL phone. Takes great pictures, fast, responsive, high-res screen etc etc. New apps are being released all the time and getting updated.
While I enjoy the 4 Apple is trying to make the iPhone 5 and iOS 5 amazing so that it'll be MORE than ready for prime time.
We have so much to look forward to: Lion, New MobileMe, Server Farm, iPhone 5, iOS 5
While I enjoy the 4 Apple is trying to make the iPhone 5 and iOS 5 amazing so that it'll be MORE than ready for prime time.
We have so much to look forward to: Lion, New MobileMe, Server Farm, iPhone 5, iOS 5
CaoCao
Feb 28, 10:02 PM
I seem to recall you agreeing with this post:
And by "living with" I mean having sex and having a family as well.
Yes, I did agree with that post. What is your point?
And yet you seem quite certain how the human brain works and what is normal/ not normal. :rolleyes:
My original point was that you made an assertive, sweeping generalization without any backup. Just a very matter-of-fact "Hey, all you humans, here is how your body was designed. All you gays, you are not the default. Trust me, I'm from teh internetz."
It's clumsy and insensitive at best, and just more religion-based trolling at worst.
Heterosexuality is by definition normal (conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected). What percentage of the population is homosexual, what percentage is heterosexual?
Humans by default have four fingers and a thumb on each hand. Am I being mean to people with more or fewer fingers? No, just stating a fact.
And by "living with" I mean having sex and having a family as well.
Yes, I did agree with that post. What is your point?
And yet you seem quite certain how the human brain works and what is normal/ not normal. :rolleyes:
My original point was that you made an assertive, sweeping generalization without any backup. Just a very matter-of-fact "Hey, all you humans, here is how your body was designed. All you gays, you are not the default. Trust me, I'm from teh internetz."
It's clumsy and insensitive at best, and just more religion-based trolling at worst.
Heterosexuality is by definition normal (conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected). What percentage of the population is homosexual, what percentage is heterosexual?
Humans by default have four fingers and a thumb on each hand. Am I being mean to people with more or fewer fingers? No, just stating a fact.
BoredomBoy
Apr 6, 01:29 PM
...but people (in general) don't want tablets. They want iPads.
I would compare it to Christmas for me. My mother-in-law asked my wife what I wanted for Christmas. "Video games," was my wife's answer. No, I didn't want video games, I wanted Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood and/or Mass Effect 2.
I would compare it to Christmas for me. My mother-in-law asked my wife what I wanted for Christmas. "Video games," was my wife's answer. No, I didn't want video games, I wanted Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood and/or Mass Effect 2.
Silentwave
Aug 18, 11:54 PM
possible clovertown obstacles....
OK here are some possible DIY upgrade to clovertown obstacles
1) firmware- will it even boot?
2) FSB- 1066 for clovertown is slower than 1333 for woody
3) RAM- Clovertown uses 533 FB-DIMM instead of the 667 FBDIMM Woodcrest uses
4) power/heat- the Clovertown has a TDP in practical use about 20W higher than the hottest Woodcrest...multiply this by two because its dual processor, and you've got a good 40W beyond the design, maybe more.
5) size- will it fit the existing coolers?
OK here are some possible DIY upgrade to clovertown obstacles
1) firmware- will it even boot?
2) FSB- 1066 for clovertown is slower than 1333 for woody
3) RAM- Clovertown uses 533 FB-DIMM instead of the 667 FBDIMM Woodcrest uses
4) power/heat- the Clovertown has a TDP in practical use about 20W higher than the hottest Woodcrest...multiply this by two because its dual processor, and you've got a good 40W beyond the design, maybe more.
5) size- will it fit the existing coolers?
R94N
Aug 18, 05:46 AM
Sweet Mary and the orphans if that thing gets near to my entertainment centre I'll kill it.
It's better than a black Wii, surely :rolleyes:
It's better than a black Wii, surely :rolleyes: