JRM PowerPod
Aug 7, 04:54 AM
Yes living in th UK is like punishment for being born at the moment. Can I stay with you in Aussie? I have a G5 and a MacBook you can use. :D
To think you guys thought it was punishment to ship us here. I laugh
I already have one of each, though my MacBook does randomly shut down. But another G5, hmmmm, well i don't use my Quad with 4gb 1tb 7800 to its potential anyway.
Once again the UK is redundant. Wait until we play England in the Ashes, omg, we are going to destroy you.
To think you guys thought it was punishment to ship us here. I laugh
I already have one of each, though my MacBook does randomly shut down. But another G5, hmmmm, well i don't use my Quad with 4gb 1tb 7800 to its potential anyway.
Once again the UK is redundant. Wait until we play England in the Ashes, omg, we are going to destroy you.
Eolian
Sep 30, 08:38 AM
Well, I ended up grabbing a Vue, in the lime green flavor. I actually kinda like the color (and it's the only one BestBuy had in stock when I went, heh).
Fits snug, feels good and strong, I like it. Not terribly hard to get in and out.
I like the Grip Vue also, the one thing I don't like about this case is the little strip on the front that goes across (above) the docking port.
Mine (night sky) is a bit floppy there and feels like it could get worse with pulling the device in and out of pockets, backpacks, etc. I can see it tearing easily if snagged.
I understand that TPU is claimed to be quite durable and elastic, but I don't like being concerned about a $25 piece of formed plastic :(
I may return it just on this 'flaw.'
Crazy?
Fits snug, feels good and strong, I like it. Not terribly hard to get in and out.
I like the Grip Vue also, the one thing I don't like about this case is the little strip on the front that goes across (above) the docking port.
Mine (night sky) is a bit floppy there and feels like it could get worse with pulling the device in and out of pockets, backpacks, etc. I can see it tearing easily if snagged.
I understand that TPU is claimed to be quite durable and elastic, but I don't like being concerned about a $25 piece of formed plastic :(
I may return it just on this 'flaw.'
Crazy?
*LTD*
Mar 25, 07:54 PM
So true.. I love all the bedroom coding and indie published stuff on iOS but to the big names in the industry iOS still just seems like a curiosity.. The prolonged trying to figure it all out / experimental phase is getting a little frustrating, though totally understandable. I wonder how long it'll be before we start getting more in the way of original content from the big IP holders. Original content that serves as a full game rather than a tech demo or proof of concept. They really should be savvy to the limitations of the devices by now.
There are very good, high-quality full games on the App Store. Are you under the impression that the "big titles" are all previews and proofs-of-concept?
We're moving way past the experimental phase. You need to sample some of the heavier-hitting titles.
There are very good, high-quality full games on the App Store. Are you under the impression that the "big titles" are all previews and proofs-of-concept?
We're moving way past the experimental phase. You need to sample some of the heavier-hitting titles.
JMax1
Nov 29, 05:20 PM
It's true then; Apple are releasing a toilet with an iPod dock! SWEET!!!! :eek:
I don't know if anyone has told you yet...
http://www.ilounge.com/assets/images/reviews_atech/icarta/1.jpg
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/mobile/reviews/aft-icarta-stereo-dock-for-ipod-and-bath-tissue-holder/
I don't know if anyone has told you yet...
http://www.ilounge.com/assets/images/reviews_atech/icarta/1.jpg
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/mobile/reviews/aft-icarta-stereo-dock-for-ipod-and-bath-tissue-holder/
sinster
Aug 6, 08:51 PM
Yes - thats what it means...Leopard is like Vista 2.0. :)
Anyone believe that it could actually be released today...like for consumer consumption?
Anyone believe that it could actually be released today...like for consumer consumption?
jav6454
Mar 25, 03:36 PM
Can the new GPU even do 1080p?... apparently so
calderone
Apr 3, 08:40 PM
It should be an option, at least. You can hide the toolbar in windowed mode, so you should be able to in fullscreen; I can't see Apple leaving it in its current implementation.
I can. Full screen is in large part based on the iOS, if that holds true the address bar is staying.
I can. Full screen is in large part based on the iOS, if that holds true the address bar is staying.
KonaBlend
Apr 12, 10:19 PM
This is so that each eye receives 24fps for 3d. So finally 3d will now look like a 3d "movie" rather than a 3d flip book.
err that would be 48 fps for each eye. the current 24 fps for each eye is what Cameron wants to improve upon.
err that would be 48 fps for each eye. the current 24 fps for each eye is what Cameron wants to improve upon.
DMann
Nov 27, 01:17 PM
This may pave the way to larger wide-screens.
I would love to see a 40" widescreen.
I would love to see a 40" widescreen.
The Captain
Apr 13, 01:44 AM
Because pros don't need features to make their life easier, and help automatically organise footage?
No professional would let the software identify their subjects. Features like this do nothing to lighten the workflow of their productions. Only amateurs would allow an algorithms to determine what gets logged as what. Regardless of how the rest of the program turn out, the facial recognition is something only amateurs will use. Professionals have a higher standard of quality, and more complex needs than that.
No professional would let the software identify their subjects. Features like this do nothing to lighten the workflow of their productions. Only amateurs would allow an algorithms to determine what gets logged as what. Regardless of how the rest of the program turn out, the facial recognition is something only amateurs will use. Professionals have a higher standard of quality, and more complex needs than that.
JGowan
May 3, 01:08 AM
First of all, this looks like this only works when you are in LaunchPad mode so there, it makes perfect sense. I truly doubt the press/hold/jiggle works in the Applications folder, where it would be very out-of-place.
Imagine that Apple did not put in the feature there in LaunchPad which is suppose to be iPad-like... people would come out of the woodwork to piss/moan about how Apple was lame to not unify the process with the press/hold/jiggle.
Secondly, this only works for Apps that have been downloaded from the App store,... this is probably implemented so that when you say YES, delete this, it will then give you an option to rate the App while simply deleting the App with a Command-Delete or a drag to the Trash would not invoke such a Rating option.
Thirdly, it's not like Apple is taking away the other options of trashing an App. Use the method that you're like and MYOB and STHU. Honestly.
50% of Mac buyers are new users so they're use to this from iPhones/iPads/iPods. Let them be comfortable. I've been on a Mac since 1995 but I realize that Apple needs to help switchers be comfortable. All the changes to Mac OS X that I've seen so far, I'm really looking forward. If you don't want 'em. Don't upgrade. Oh... and STHU.
Imagine that Apple did not put in the feature there in LaunchPad which is suppose to be iPad-like... people would come out of the woodwork to piss/moan about how Apple was lame to not unify the process with the press/hold/jiggle.
Secondly, this only works for Apps that have been downloaded from the App store,... this is probably implemented so that when you say YES, delete this, it will then give you an option to rate the App while simply deleting the App with a Command-Delete or a drag to the Trash would not invoke such a Rating option.
Thirdly, it's not like Apple is taking away the other options of trashing an App. Use the method that you're like and MYOB and STHU. Honestly.
50% of Mac buyers are new users so they're use to this from iPhones/iPads/iPods. Let them be comfortable. I've been on a Mac since 1995 but I realize that Apple needs to help switchers be comfortable. All the changes to Mac OS X that I've seen so far, I'm really looking forward. If you don't want 'em. Don't upgrade. Oh... and STHU.
MacMan86
Apr 23, 04:11 PM
It's all somewhat speculation until we hear Apples response.
If it's all just speculation, why be so quick to shout "privacy invasion" when you don't know the full story? It can't be one rule for you and another for everyone else.
The technical explanation from an Apple engineer will probably be the best explanation we'll see - Apple's PR rarely go into technical details on such matters. Anntenna-gate has been the only exception to that rule I can think of.
If it's all just speculation, why be so quick to shout "privacy invasion" when you don't know the full story? It can't be one rule for you and another for everyone else.
The technical explanation from an Apple engineer will probably be the best explanation we'll see - Apple's PR rarely go into technical details on such matters. Anntenna-gate has been the only exception to that rule I can think of.
J the Ninja
Apr 12, 08:38 PM
Supposedly the guy behind this new version is also the criminal that destroyed iMovie a few years back. God I hope FC8 isn't ANYTHING like iMovie.
Also known as the guy who made FCP and Premiere originally.
Also known as the guy who made FCP and Premiere originally.
AppleScruff1
Apr 23, 11:37 AM
for all your defending of this feature ... can you give me even one positive reason this is good for the average person that out-weighs the negative ones ... just one
It's a good feature because Apple has it, otherwise he would be in an uproar.
It's a good feature because Apple has it, otherwise he would be in an uproar.
LarryC
Mar 6, 02:33 PM
There are a lot of old perceptions about diesel. I love diesel; they are inherently more efficient than gasoline engines.
I could say something like- "there are a lot of people in the US stuck on old tech, out dated, dirty, inefficient, gas powered cars that don't last as long as diesels nor have as good as ROI as diesels" but I wouldn't want to upset anyone who owns a technically inferior vehicle so I will keep my thoughts to myself.
:D
As with most things :D I do have an opinion on that. I am very interested in diesel, but I am in the minority as far as that is concerned. When I mention the benefits of diesel to my friends, most of them say something like "Really, you're kidding, if they are superior in areas such as mileage then why doesn't the car companies make and sell them?" I believe the answer is because of the ridiculous emissions standards placed on the manufacturers by agencies such as the EPA. I believe that our government knows the benefits of diesel technology, but that too many powerful people are bought and paid for by giant corporations. You can call me a tin-hat wearing conspiracy theorist is you want to, but I really do think that is why many good things are being suppressed here.
I could say something like- "there are a lot of people in the US stuck on old tech, out dated, dirty, inefficient, gas powered cars that don't last as long as diesels nor have as good as ROI as diesels" but I wouldn't want to upset anyone who owns a technically inferior vehicle so I will keep my thoughts to myself.
:D
As with most things :D I do have an opinion on that. I am very interested in diesel, but I am in the minority as far as that is concerned. When I mention the benefits of diesel to my friends, most of them say something like "Really, you're kidding, if they are superior in areas such as mileage then why doesn't the car companies make and sell them?" I believe the answer is because of the ridiculous emissions standards placed on the manufacturers by agencies such as the EPA. I believe that our government knows the benefits of diesel technology, but that too many powerful people are bought and paid for by giant corporations. You can call me a tin-hat wearing conspiracy theorist is you want to, but I really do think that is why many good things are being suppressed here.
extenet
Apr 1, 02:12 PM
About this Mac or System Profiler? Refreshed About this Mac was already present in DP1. Post some screenshots.
Whoops! You were right. I assumed that when you click on more info... from about this mac it took you to system profiler like in previous OS. Didn't notice this system information app in DP1, pretty sweet :)
Whoops! You were right. I assumed that when you click on more info... from about this mac it took you to system profiler like in previous OS. Didn't notice this system information app in DP1, pretty sweet :)
innominato5090
Mar 31, 04:27 AM
Talking about new "features": have you noticed the Fuji wallpaper is different?
The new one has clouds at the base...
can you upload that, please :)
The new one has clouds at the base...
can you upload that, please :)
Lord Blackadder
Mar 7, 06:20 PM
Because there is not enough of it, and it will increase our need of foreign oil not lessen it.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
likemyorbs
Mar 24, 04:03 PM
:::Raises left hand::: I can honestly say school messed me up. I am mostly left handed, but when it comes to writing I write with my right.
So you're not gay, you're bi. :D
So you're not gay, you're bi. :D
Leet Apple
Feb 27, 05:51 PM
Changed it up a bit.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5054/5483768370_423466b4b2_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5260/5483175217_83c32f59b9_b.jpg
You Should Clean your iPhone Screen ;)
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5054/5483768370_423466b4b2_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5260/5483175217_83c32f59b9_b.jpg
You Should Clean your iPhone Screen ;)
NATO
Aug 16, 07:35 AM
If they use WiFi with the new iPods, they'll need a chunky battery. When I still used a PDA, the battery life nose dived when you turned on the WiFi. . .
Ugg
Mar 31, 02:44 PM
The American obsession with WWII simply isn't healthy.
Admittedly, the Brits aren't very good at letting it go either.
Admittedly, the Brits aren't very good at letting it go either.
yg17
Apr 10, 12:19 AM
Yes I can drive one. I also think that if you can't drive one, you shouldn't be allowed to drive period. Automatics are just things to get you from point A to B, whereas a standard transmission car is something you use for fun, with getting from point A to B just being a side effect.
-Don
I definitely think driving a manual makes me a safer, more attentive driver.
I'm against crap that makes people lazy like adaptive cruise control, auto headlights and auto wipers and stuff like that, I suppose an automatic can fall in there too. That stuff makes drivers lazy and inattentive because they don't have to concentrate on the road.
-Don
I definitely think driving a manual makes me a safer, more attentive driver.
I'm against crap that makes people lazy like adaptive cruise control, auto headlights and auto wipers and stuff like that, I suppose an automatic can fall in there too. That stuff makes drivers lazy and inattentive because they don't have to concentrate on the road.
satcomer
Jun 23, 11:01 AM
If the put touch into iMac then my arm will become tired from reaching up to the screen for hours on end surfing.
No comments:
Post a Comment