JRM PowerPod
Sep 12, 07:53 AM
10am San Francisco time. So 1pm East Coast, 6pm London, 3am Wednesday in Sydney.
What do these clowns do to us aussies, 3am, so not fair, everytime
What do these clowns do to us aussies, 3am, so not fair, everytime
Jazwire
Apr 22, 10:57 AM
Home Schooling +1
MacRumors
Jul 21, 09:01 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2010/07/21/apple-targets-nokia-with-new-signal-attenuation-video/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/07/21/095823-nokia_signal_attenuation.jpg
Indian Feathers tattoos
more...
indian feather tattoo
Indian Feather Tattoo - Teal
more...
indian feather tattoos. Indian Feathers tattoos; Indian Feathers tattoos. AppleScruff1. Apr 28, 02:58 PM. That makes me smile.. :)
Indian feather tattoo designs
more...
indian feather tattoos. indian
my feather tattoo, done by the
more...
indian feather tattoos. indian
native american indian tattoo
more...
and feather tattoo
american indian tattoo art
more...
feather tattoo. Feather tattoo
indian, feather tattoos
more...
indian feather tattoos. eagle
hawk Indian feather tattoo
indian feather tattoos. indian
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/07/21/095823-nokia_signal_attenuation.jpg
nim81
Mar 13, 04:46 AM
While Symbian might have been first, I was talking strictly about iOS vs Android as that was what the poster hinted at.
Backgrounding certain tasks is fine, and yes it works well even though it's not a replacement for multi-tasking. What I hate is the task manager they came up with that is near useless since it doesn't actually give you a list of running tasks. It's a list of everything you've done with the phone, in like ever. You need to manually clean it up and even then, you don't know what is and isn't running.
I wasn't talking about design and updates. More like the marketing effort and the stagnation between said spec bumps. They marketed the crap out of the Rev A, then it just fell out of sight. Same for AppleTV 1st generation.
But thanks for assuming and correcting me on something I didn't mention or hint at. Real classy.
Honestly I think Apple got the multitasking almost spot on... the way it manages it is perfect for a device with limited battery/processing power.
In the last 6 months I've "fixed" two phones for people (1x Android, 1 x Symbian) who've installed an app that's running constantly in the background and making the phone unusable to the point they thought it was broken. I used to find it with my own Nokia N95, the multitasking ability was excellent but you had to be careful what you left running or the battery could run down in a few hours.
I think Apple have made an excellent trade-off in that way, it used to bug the hell out of me that I couldn't use sat nav or internet radio apps in the background, but since iOS 4 I've really not found any situation where I need "true" multitasking and the current implementation has little effect on the battery.
That said, I agree with what you say about the task manager, it feels really clunky. I don't know what would be the best way to change it, but I'm sure there has to be something better.
Going back to what the OP is saying, no Apple is of course not unique in innovating, to suggest so is just blinkered. Taking the point of the multitasking or even copy and paste, I'm pretty sure that if other mobile OSs weren't doing this, Apple would have been happy to sit back and say sorry, you just can't do that. They can be quite an arrogant company like that.
Backgrounding certain tasks is fine, and yes it works well even though it's not a replacement for multi-tasking. What I hate is the task manager they came up with that is near useless since it doesn't actually give you a list of running tasks. It's a list of everything you've done with the phone, in like ever. You need to manually clean it up and even then, you don't know what is and isn't running.
I wasn't talking about design and updates. More like the marketing effort and the stagnation between said spec bumps. They marketed the crap out of the Rev A, then it just fell out of sight. Same for AppleTV 1st generation.
But thanks for assuming and correcting me on something I didn't mention or hint at. Real classy.
Honestly I think Apple got the multitasking almost spot on... the way it manages it is perfect for a device with limited battery/processing power.
In the last 6 months I've "fixed" two phones for people (1x Android, 1 x Symbian) who've installed an app that's running constantly in the background and making the phone unusable to the point they thought it was broken. I used to find it with my own Nokia N95, the multitasking ability was excellent but you had to be careful what you left running or the battery could run down in a few hours.
I think Apple have made an excellent trade-off in that way, it used to bug the hell out of me that I couldn't use sat nav or internet radio apps in the background, but since iOS 4 I've really not found any situation where I need "true" multitasking and the current implementation has little effect on the battery.
That said, I agree with what you say about the task manager, it feels really clunky. I don't know what would be the best way to change it, but I'm sure there has to be something better.
Going back to what the OP is saying, no Apple is of course not unique in innovating, to suggest so is just blinkered. Taking the point of the multitasking or even copy and paste, I'm pretty sure that if other mobile OSs weren't doing this, Apple would have been happy to sit back and say sorry, you just can't do that. They can be quite an arrogant company like that.
more...
OllyW
Mar 16, 10:49 AM
What difference does it make if one Android device outsells the iPhone? Many of the features are in the OS, not the hardware.
Because when he focuses on one device, Apple 'win'.
Because when he focuses on one device, Apple 'win'.
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
more...
Arip
Sep 25, 06:37 PM
I have an experiment for those that say "It runs fine on my <insert computer here>."
Open up (in full screen mode) a landscape oriented RAW image and:
1. Use the straightening tool.
2. Try to rotate it 180.
3. Use the patch tool.
Let us know what you find.
Thanks!
nothing strange happend
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/9180/picture2jz1.th.png (http://img57.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture2jz1.png)
Open up (in full screen mode) a landscape oriented RAW image and:
1. Use the straightening tool.
2. Try to rotate it 180.
3. Use the patch tool.
Let us know what you find.
Thanks!
nothing strange happend
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/9180/picture2jz1.th.png (http://img57.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture2jz1.png)
forrestmc4
Jan 10, 10:09 PM
I'm a regular reader of Gizmodo and their "rival" Engadget. I have to say after this stunt I don't have much respect left for Giz. A presentation, particularly a press presentation, is a key part of CES marketing for some of the biggest names around. Messing with the Motorola presentation was way, way, way over the line. Sadly, the comments on the story seem to show a rift in the Gizmodo readership trending towards acceptance of this unbelievably unprofessional conduct. There were even commenters faulting companies for leaving IR receivers uncovered by electrical tape or some other rudimentary signal blocking fix. Companies shouldn't have to shelter their product presentations from this kind of childishness, journalistic professionalism should take care of that.
Shame on Gizmodo. Bring out the banhammer.
Shame on Gizmodo. Bring out the banhammer.
more...
Viking Quest
Aug 11, 09:55 AM
The 23" display is now $999
The 30" display is now $1999
Apple could fill that $1000 hole with a nice 26" cinema display. It would be perfect in our household.
Are there "25-27" LCDs out there that Apple could sell for say $1499? Has Dell or HP filled this hole yet?
I'm about to pull the trigger on the Dell 2407WFP. 24" monitor with Component, VGA, S-Video, and DVI inputs. It's a sweet monitor and blows the Apple 23" out of the water. And it's only $703!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The 30" display is now $1999
Apple could fill that $1000 hole with a nice 26" cinema display. It would be perfect in our household.
Are there "25-27" LCDs out there that Apple could sell for say $1499? Has Dell or HP filled this hole yet?
I'm about to pull the trigger on the Dell 2407WFP. 24" monitor with Component, VGA, S-Video, and DVI inputs. It's a sweet monitor and blows the Apple 23" out of the water. And it's only $703!!!!!!!!!!!!!
chrono1081
Apr 29, 01:58 PM
Come on Open GL 3... come to daddy.
I don't understand why people are panicking about the iPad thing. The iPad has some nice features people enjoyed so they are bringing it to the desktop. Its not like you have to USE those features but if it makes computing more enjoyable why not use it?
It'll be nice for those of us who do real work on our computers all day long to have some of these conveniences. For some reason though whenever Apple simplifies something people start crying "Apple doesn't care about the pro users anymore!" (Even though in reality of the person were truly a "pro user" they would welcome anything that helps them get their job done more efficiently).
I don't understand why people are panicking about the iPad thing. The iPad has some nice features people enjoyed so they are bringing it to the desktop. Its not like you have to USE those features but if it makes computing more enjoyable why not use it?
It'll be nice for those of us who do real work on our computers all day long to have some of these conveniences. For some reason though whenever Apple simplifies something people start crying "Apple doesn't care about the pro users anymore!" (Even though in reality of the person were truly a "pro user" they would welcome anything that helps them get their job done more efficiently).
more...
leekohler
Apr 23, 08:43 AM
homosexuality≠bisexuality
So what?
So what?
anotherarunan
Jan 10, 07:56 AM
Ok heres what i think:
Mac Mini
-Complete redesign! Looks much cooler :cool:
-Faster processors
-More RAM
-HDMI out (almost like an apple tv hybrid)
-Introduced with new CHEAPER apple displays!
Macbook Pro
-Maybe a redesign? Not too sure
-Penryn Processors
-Updated graphics
-Just standard updates (nothing too special)
Macbook Nano
-Small 12inch or 13.3 inch screen
-Slow low power processors (less than 2ghz)
-32gb SSD with 64gb upgrade option
-Crappy graphics
-Internal Superdrive
-Nothing THAT special except it looks nice and is small/thin as hell
-Pricing: Slightly more expensive than the macbook
Itunes - 8? Movie rentals, new move interface etc
Iphone SDK
Sales figures
Some cool performance by band/artist
Mac Mini
-Complete redesign! Looks much cooler :cool:
-Faster processors
-More RAM
-HDMI out (almost like an apple tv hybrid)
-Introduced with new CHEAPER apple displays!
Macbook Pro
-Maybe a redesign? Not too sure
-Penryn Processors
-Updated graphics
-Just standard updates (nothing too special)
Macbook Nano
-Small 12inch or 13.3 inch screen
-Slow low power processors (less than 2ghz)
-32gb SSD with 64gb upgrade option
-Crappy graphics
-Internal Superdrive
-Nothing THAT special except it looks nice and is small/thin as hell
-Pricing: Slightly more expensive than the macbook
Itunes - 8? Movie rentals, new move interface etc
Iphone SDK
Sales figures
Some cool performance by band/artist
more...
berkleeboy210
Sep 12, 09:23 AM
OK, Now i'm really ticked off.... - Had about $300 in unauthorized charges to my debit, this morning. so now I have no Debit card to buy anything Apple Related today with :mad:
Which Means, they WILL release the True Video iPod, and the iPhone.
Damn Scammers ruin our lives.
Which Means, they WILL release the True Video iPod, and the iPhone.
Damn Scammers ruin our lives.
Anthony T
Apr 15, 04:41 PM
I was all for having an aluminum design, but not if it looks like that. That thing is just ugly. I like this concept the most, just without the circle around the Apple logo, and none of those ugly colors like the pink, blue, green, etc.
http://cdn.erictric.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/iphone-4g-concept-3-march-4.jpg
http://cdn.erictric.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/iphone-4g-concept-3-march-4.jpg
more...
andrewbecks
May 2, 08:46 PM
They still need to revert the faux leather on iCal. That's hideous.
Couldn't agree more!
Couldn't agree more!
wPod
Nov 16, 04:57 PM
come on, old news, ive been using a 15" with AMD for a few months now!
http://static.flickr.com/45/136507991_97ab1e6d66_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/99787587@N00/136507991/ )
http://static.flickr.com/45/136507991_97ab1e6d66_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/99787587@N00/136507991/ )
more...
dethmaShine
Apr 16, 09:32 AM
No, when Apple revealed the iPhone most people were thinking something along the line of "Apple seriously need to reconsider leaving out 3G and the ability to install software if they want to make it in the smart phone business", a phone that doesn't let you install new software is by definiton not a smart phone. The iPhone 3G was the real deal, ofcourse the first gen was successful, simply because it was Apple, but the 3G was when it turned into a good product and soared in popularity.
And iPhone is far from the first icon based phone and I personally believe the Sony Ericsson P800 and P900 was a big inspiration for iPhone.
Where can I find the definition of a smart phone?
And iPhone is far from the first icon based phone and I personally believe the Sony Ericsson P800 and P900 was a big inspiration for iPhone.
Where can I find the definition of a smart phone?
AppliedVisual
Oct 17, 11:15 AM
More simply, I'm curious of who out there needs to burn 30 to 50 GB chunks of data, too large for a dual layer DVD to hold, and why.
I routinely work with video files and animation frames/models/scenes that are several gigabytes in size. Our current back-up solution is an ever-evolving archive on a redundant SAN with rotating tape archives. It would sure be nice to be able to record a project onto a single disc again instead of multiple discs. Because, doing the whole multi-DVD backup of a project is a pain in the arse and I rearely mess with such a thing given the other solutions in place.
HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are just another evolution of the CD / DVD / optical disc format. Just as CPU speeds and hard drive storage capacities increase, so must the capacities of other types of media.
As for yoru comment on 1080p displays... All HDTV sets are now in the progression to 1080p with most new '06 model DLP and LCOS rear projection sets now accepting and displaying full 1080p. There are currently 4 plasma displays on the market between the US and Japan that are full 1080p and several LCD models.
FWIW and I'm not trying to boast too much, I waited patiently to replace my old 36" tube set until 1080p was reality. I finally did so this July and bought the Samsung HL-S7178W - a 71" DLP TV with full 1080p and it's absolutely stunning. Did cost me $3600 on special with another coupon, but that's actually $180 less than I paid for the set it replaced when I bought it about 7 years ago.
I routinely work with video files and animation frames/models/scenes that are several gigabytes in size. Our current back-up solution is an ever-evolving archive on a redundant SAN with rotating tape archives. It would sure be nice to be able to record a project onto a single disc again instead of multiple discs. Because, doing the whole multi-DVD backup of a project is a pain in the arse and I rearely mess with such a thing given the other solutions in place.
HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are just another evolution of the CD / DVD / optical disc format. Just as CPU speeds and hard drive storage capacities increase, so must the capacities of other types of media.
As for yoru comment on 1080p displays... All HDTV sets are now in the progression to 1080p with most new '06 model DLP and LCOS rear projection sets now accepting and displaying full 1080p. There are currently 4 plasma displays on the market between the US and Japan that are full 1080p and several LCD models.
FWIW and I'm not trying to boast too much, I waited patiently to replace my old 36" tube set until 1080p was reality. I finally did so this July and bought the Samsung HL-S7178W - a 71" DLP TV with full 1080p and it's absolutely stunning. Did cost me $3600 on special with another coupon, but that's actually $180 less than I paid for the set it replaced when I bought it about 7 years ago.
Squozen
Jan 6, 05:33 AM
Many thanks for this. I'll make sure to be extra busy at work to avoid finding out anything about it, and come home to a (hopefully) nicely-streaming keynote.
one1
Apr 30, 08:46 PM
Safari is broken for me. Reopens the last window URL no matter what I set my preferences to. :( Other than that it FIXED AUTOMATOR (Yaaayyyy!!).
LOZER
Jan 13, 02:16 PM
LCD Apple Cinema Display would be nice. Maybe a isight on it. I haven't gotten an ACD since im hoping they announce a new model.
fivepoint
May 4, 05:55 PM
Dude, you're clueless.
I have a severe congenital hearing loss and it's really amazing how parents don't really understand the long term consequences of poor hearing protection.
Just as in almost all other health matters, the more exposure to loud noises when young, the more likely a child is to end up with a hearing loss as he ages. Some parents do insist on hearing protection when using firearms, but I'm sure there are a lot that don't. Shooting guns without hearing protection is like taking a five year old to a Nascar race. Very, very irresponsible simply based on the noise level.
I'm sure Dr Choi was speaking of the danger of firearms being discharged by and around children with a lack of supervision, but your tunnel vision when it comes to the health and safety of children is appalling.
I think it's you who's clueless. You make it seem as if it's the role of government and physicians to eliminate risk in our lives. What's more risky, taking your kid to a NASCAR event without hearing protection, or raising them in a large city with lots of traffic and crime? What's more risky, raising your kids in a home with un-locked guns, or raising them with an ultra-protective disregard for a child's need to learn life lessons and experience the value of trust/responsibility first hand?
My dad had a rifle hanging on a gun-rack above his computer in his office for my entire life. The ammunition was directly below the gun in a drawer as part of the gun-rack. I was raised to respect the weapon and to never touch it unless I was given permission. I earned my parents' trust, and learned responsibility as a consequence. Was that wrong of my parents? Absolutely not, but I guess I'm just 'clueless.'
Where do you live? Cedar Rapids, where the nearest next physician is five or ten minutes away, at most? What if you were in Guttenberg, where the next physician is half an hour or more? Open-ended liberty to refuse to provide treatment at a whim is just plain irresponsible.
An unpopular physician creates the market demand for an alternative. Supply, unencumbered by any sort of rationing by the gov't subsidized higher-education system, would produce the complimentary supply.
In any event, do you seriously contend that this is a situation solveable by by big intrusive government controlling physicians and eliminating their ability to render services as they see fit?
I have a severe congenital hearing loss and it's really amazing how parents don't really understand the long term consequences of poor hearing protection.
Just as in almost all other health matters, the more exposure to loud noises when young, the more likely a child is to end up with a hearing loss as he ages. Some parents do insist on hearing protection when using firearms, but I'm sure there are a lot that don't. Shooting guns without hearing protection is like taking a five year old to a Nascar race. Very, very irresponsible simply based on the noise level.
I'm sure Dr Choi was speaking of the danger of firearms being discharged by and around children with a lack of supervision, but your tunnel vision when it comes to the health and safety of children is appalling.
I think it's you who's clueless. You make it seem as if it's the role of government and physicians to eliminate risk in our lives. What's more risky, taking your kid to a NASCAR event without hearing protection, or raising them in a large city with lots of traffic and crime? What's more risky, raising your kids in a home with un-locked guns, or raising them with an ultra-protective disregard for a child's need to learn life lessons and experience the value of trust/responsibility first hand?
My dad had a rifle hanging on a gun-rack above his computer in his office for my entire life. The ammunition was directly below the gun in a drawer as part of the gun-rack. I was raised to respect the weapon and to never touch it unless I was given permission. I earned my parents' trust, and learned responsibility as a consequence. Was that wrong of my parents? Absolutely not, but I guess I'm just 'clueless.'
Where do you live? Cedar Rapids, where the nearest next physician is five or ten minutes away, at most? What if you were in Guttenberg, where the next physician is half an hour or more? Open-ended liberty to refuse to provide treatment at a whim is just plain irresponsible.
An unpopular physician creates the market demand for an alternative. Supply, unencumbered by any sort of rationing by the gov't subsidized higher-education system, would produce the complimentary supply.
In any event, do you seriously contend that this is a situation solveable by by big intrusive government controlling physicians and eliminating their ability to render services as they see fit?
ero87
Nov 26, 12:06 AM
ahh i miss real rumors! exciting new stuff!
I guess I can't expect apple to ALWAYS have new stuff, but sales just don't excite me very much...
I guess I can't expect apple to ALWAYS have new stuff, but sales just don't excite me very much...
demallien
Sep 12, 08:36 AM
can we confim the what countrys itunes stores are down ?
usa/uk ...
France has the update message. Cool! How excited am I?!?!
usa/uk ...
France has the update message. Cool! How excited am I?!?!
No comments:
Post a Comment