wtfk
Aug 29, 02:32 PM
Eh, I believe little of what Greenpeace ever says. :rolleyes:
There's little reason to. Penn & Teller blasted them real good on their TV show "Bulls hit! (http://tinyurl.com/s4gfc)" on Showtime.
There's little reason to. Penn & Teller blasted them real good on their TV show "Bulls hit! (http://tinyurl.com/s4gfc)" on Showtime.
alex_ant
Oct 7, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by barkmonster
I can just see the look of disappointment on everyone's faces when the dual 1.25Ghz mac is slapped silly by both windows systems at practically everything.
Won't happen. To a Mac zealot, if the G4 is slower than anything, either 1) the benchmark was rigged, or 2) "pcheese" and "Windblowz" suck anyway.
The Pentium 5 could come along and deliver 15,000 in SPECfp and all the Mac zealots would be whining about how SPEC isn't a real-world benchmark and how Macs deliver such better real-world performance etc., even when they have nothing to substantiate their claims but the biased and selective evidence from themselves and their Mac-using friends.
I love Macs, but I harbor no illusions about them not generally being just about the slowest thing on the block at the moment.
Alex
I can just see the look of disappointment on everyone's faces when the dual 1.25Ghz mac is slapped silly by both windows systems at practically everything.
Won't happen. To a Mac zealot, if the G4 is slower than anything, either 1) the benchmark was rigged, or 2) "pcheese" and "Windblowz" suck anyway.
The Pentium 5 could come along and deliver 15,000 in SPECfp and all the Mac zealots would be whining about how SPEC isn't a real-world benchmark and how Macs deliver such better real-world performance etc., even when they have nothing to substantiate their claims but the biased and selective evidence from themselves and their Mac-using friends.
I love Macs, but I harbor no illusions about them not generally being just about the slowest thing on the block at the moment.
Alex
SactoGuy18
Mar 14, 07:55 PM
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
Actually, thorium-based nuclear reactors have been successfully tested since the early 1960's! If you read this article from Wired magazine:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/
The idea of the liquid fluoride thorium reactor has been around since the 1950's. Ever since Alvin Weinberg's pioneering research, improved technology has made it possible for the LFTR to be competitive against light-water uranium reactors, and of course there's all the advantages I mentioned earlier.
Best of all, thorium-232 is many times more available than fuel-quality uranium, and it's estimated the continental USA may have 20% of the world's supply of thorium that can be mined out--not including the 175,000 tons the US military mined and stored as part of the Manhattan Project!
Like I said earlier, what are we waiting for?
Actually, thorium-based nuclear reactors have been successfully tested since the early 1960's! If you read this article from Wired magazine:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/
The idea of the liquid fluoride thorium reactor has been around since the 1950's. Ever since Alvin Weinberg's pioneering research, improved technology has made it possible for the LFTR to be competitive against light-water uranium reactors, and of course there's all the advantages I mentioned earlier.
Best of all, thorium-232 is many times more available than fuel-quality uranium, and it's estimated the continental USA may have 20% of the world's supply of thorium that can be mined out--not including the 175,000 tons the US military mined and stored as part of the Manhattan Project!
Like I said earlier, what are we waiting for?
Mousse
Apr 25, 06:14 PM
Part of the problem is that God has always been a terrible communicator. ;)
Nope. Unlike Captain Kirk. God is a firm believer in the Prime Directive (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Prime_Directive).:D
Anyhow, back on topic as why I'm religious? I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel. There's already someone who has perfected the moral system: Jesus. His moral system, IMO, is the best one. It's a hard system to follow, but if--big IF... no HUGE @$$ IF--everyone can follow that system of morals, the world would be a lot better place.
Nope. Unlike Captain Kirk. God is a firm believer in the Prime Directive (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Prime_Directive).:D
Anyhow, back on topic as why I'm religious? I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel. There's already someone who has perfected the moral system: Jesus. His moral system, IMO, is the best one. It's a hard system to follow, but if--big IF... no HUGE @$$ IF--everyone can follow that system of morals, the world would be a lot better place.
Macist
Feb 26, 05:20 AM
The thing is, do Apple care about being outpaced sales-wise? They may just be content to make their products smoother and sexier than the better Android phones and be the Mercedes.
If they want to be in the sales race they need to get the 32MB iPhone free on �30 per month contract like other top-end smart phones, not �230 on a �35 per month contract. As Android and Maemo and tothers improve that massve Apple tax won't wash.
They also need an iPhone nano to compete with the HTC hero type phones.
If they want to be in the sales race they need to get the 32MB iPhone free on �30 per month contract like other top-end smart phones, not �230 on a �35 per month contract. As Android and Maemo and tothers improve that massve Apple tax won't wash.
They also need an iPhone nano to compete with the HTC hero type phones.
NathanMuir
Mar 24, 07:34 PM
As cool as that poster might be, I doubt that he has the political or monetary muscle that the Catholic Church does.
That doesn't take away from how utterly hypocritical that train of thought is.
New York :: Yankee Stadium
Gehrig New York Yankees
New York Yankees Baseball
New York Yankees iPhone
New York Yankees v Texas
New York Yankees iPhone
new york yankees logo black.
new york yankees images.
New York Yankees New Era
New York Yankees Derek Jeter
New York Yankees Baseball Team
That doesn't take away from how utterly hypocritical that train of thought is.
Wilbah
May 5, 08:59 PM
I challenge you to walk down the west side, anywhere... but take 9th avenue from say... the 57th St to the mid 30's. Just get in a cab. Make a phone call in regular traffic. I'd be willing to wager that at least 75% of the time you drop a call, once, if not twice during that trip. It happens to me nearly every day.
i really don't understand all the people in NYC who have dropped calls multiple times a day.
i live in brooklyn, ny and work in manhattan. i have NEVER experienced the amount of dropped calls as some people on macrumors (who live in the nyc area) have.
i want to know how many calls for those who have all these "problems" with AT&T make a day. i do not have a land line, so my iphone is the only phone i have. i have owned an 1st gen iphone and i have had a 3Gs for almost 1 year.
i make, on average, about 5 - 20 calls a day. i may experience a dropped call or a call that didn't go through about 3 - 5 times PER MONTH.
the only annoyance that i have experienced more often than i'd like has to do with visual voicemail. sometimes, when i try to play my messages via visual voicemail, it never connects. so i have dial my iPhone's # and check my messages the old school way. but that doesn't happen that often.
for all those people who have dropped calls every day, are your iPhones jailbroken? i am not sure that would have anything to do with it, though.
i really don't understand all the people in NYC who have dropped calls multiple times a day.
i live in brooklyn, ny and work in manhattan. i have NEVER experienced the amount of dropped calls as some people on macrumors (who live in the nyc area) have.
i want to know how many calls for those who have all these "problems" with AT&T make a day. i do not have a land line, so my iphone is the only phone i have. i have owned an 1st gen iphone and i have had a 3Gs for almost 1 year.
i make, on average, about 5 - 20 calls a day. i may experience a dropped call or a call that didn't go through about 3 - 5 times PER MONTH.
the only annoyance that i have experienced more often than i'd like has to do with visual voicemail. sometimes, when i try to play my messages via visual voicemail, it never connects. so i have dial my iPhone's # and check my messages the old school way. but that doesn't happen that often.
for all those people who have dropped calls every day, are your iPhones jailbroken? i am not sure that would have anything to do with it, though.
Gelfin
Mar 26, 03:31 PM
I suppose you're right about the word "phrase," skunk, especially when you write a recursive real, rather than a nominal, definition of the word "sentence." ;) Ciaociao's Latin was imperfect, but I think I comprehended what it meant.
So what you are saying is skunk was correct in every respect (and he was) but you just had to argue anyway.
Is that something taught in the catechism? Based on this thread I'd been wondering.
So what you are saying is skunk was correct in every respect (and he was) but you just had to argue anyway.
Is that something taught in the catechism? Based on this thread I'd been wondering.
Draythor
Apr 13, 04:33 PM
GGJstudios
Thanks, man. I connect to other drives so rarely that I have never bothered to look this up myself.
OT: Does anyone one know why Apple hasn't got this built in? Licensing rights?
Thanks, man. I connect to other drives so rarely that I have never bothered to look this up myself.
OT: Does anyone one know why Apple hasn't got this built in? Licensing rights?
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 01:01 PM
Come on, people, let's cut Greenpeace some slack, here. Their fanaticism only goes to certain lengths...the reason they protest Apple and other U.S. businesses is because if they actually protested in places where pollution was a major issue (like China), they'd all get shot. :)
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 02:45 PM
Exactly. There are more people. So if people today create 1/2 the pollution they did 20yrs ago but now there are twice as many people there is no change.
We are doomed! :D
You understand my point :D
We are doomed! :D
You understand my point :D
redkamel
Aug 29, 06:57 PM
3 The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. ...
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
CaoCao
Mar 25, 09:59 AM
Subtract the individuals affiliated with gangs and the mentally unstable and we're staring at a long list of homosexuals murdered by "mainstream" individuals, many of whom attended church on a regular basis and were in fact catholic. That their religious affiliations are not immediately telegraphed is not evidence of absence, but rather of the fact that 76% of the population self-identifies as Christian.
Aren't we having a thread about religion dying?
Don't forget to subtract the victims who we aren't sure about them being killed because they were homosexual.
So, how many can you prove were Catholic, mentally stable and not in gangs?
People can BELIEVE whatever they want.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
"so frequently" ORLY? Prove it. To prove that the Catholic Church restricts rights you have to prove that the rights existed before.
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
To stretch my own analogy, it also ignores that the men who put on white hoods and terrorized black people were not "mainstream" white people either, but they were nevertheless acting on the attitudes held by "mainstream" white people. They were radical, but saw themselves as the ones with the strength of will to enforce the true will of the "mainstream." It's all very well to believe that the darkies should keep their place, but somebody's got to do the work of keeping them there when they step out of line.
However, I will return to what I touched on before: the Catholic Church (and Christian churches generally in the United States) currently have no need for terrorist thugs. They have great political influence and have convinced a significant plurality (seemingly no longer a majority, I am gratified to point out) that they are entitled to subjugate others bloodlessly and anonymously through the democratic process.
At least this is so until the courts clearly state once and for all that this is incompatible with our law and our society. Incidentally, that's also when the thugs will really come out, and you watch how many of them claim to be doing the Lord's work.
The Klan was basically an organization with the express purpose of keeping Negroes in line, can you prove an equivalent organization in the Catholic Church?
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
If we constantly expand the topic, none of what was previously said is relevant.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
You forgot the fact that many "Christians" in the US are fundamentalist nuts
Aren't we having a thread about religion dying?
Don't forget to subtract the victims who we aren't sure about them being killed because they were homosexual.
So, how many can you prove were Catholic, mentally stable and not in gangs?
People can BELIEVE whatever they want.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
"so frequently" ORLY? Prove it. To prove that the Catholic Church restricts rights you have to prove that the rights existed before.
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
To stretch my own analogy, it also ignores that the men who put on white hoods and terrorized black people were not "mainstream" white people either, but they were nevertheless acting on the attitudes held by "mainstream" white people. They were radical, but saw themselves as the ones with the strength of will to enforce the true will of the "mainstream." It's all very well to believe that the darkies should keep their place, but somebody's got to do the work of keeping them there when they step out of line.
However, I will return to what I touched on before: the Catholic Church (and Christian churches generally in the United States) currently have no need for terrorist thugs. They have great political influence and have convinced a significant plurality (seemingly no longer a majority, I am gratified to point out) that they are entitled to subjugate others bloodlessly and anonymously through the democratic process.
At least this is so until the courts clearly state once and for all that this is incompatible with our law and our society. Incidentally, that's also when the thugs will really come out, and you watch how many of them claim to be doing the Lord's work.
The Klan was basically an organization with the express purpose of keeping Negroes in line, can you prove an equivalent organization in the Catholic Church?
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
If we constantly expand the topic, none of what was previously said is relevant.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
You forgot the fact that many "Christians" in the US are fundamentalist nuts
nixd2001
Oct 10, 04:13 AM
Originally posted by AtomBoy
I'm kind of caught between a rock and a hard place.
Speed is important for me: CD-burning, video-editing, animation-rendering. For that reason the last computer I bought was a Quicksilver. It was the obvious choice at the time.
I imagined that my next computer would be another Mac to replace my ageing PC. Now it's not so clear. From the informed posts by new P4/XP users on this site it's clear that PC could do the things I want it to do more quickly and, arguably, with comparable stability.
BUT, I'm an expat living in Japan. One huge advantage of OSX is unicode. My Mac has a Japanese OS, which is great for my wife, but when I'm using the Mac I can switch the user language to English. Much of our Japanese software is also unicode compatible, so we can buy one program that can be used in either of our native languages. This is very cost-effective in the long-run.
I'm prepared to wait until next year when, hopefully, Apple will be using G5 chips from IBM that are much closer to those from Intel/AMD. I don't need my Mac to be the fastest computer out there (the advantages of OSX would bridge the gap) but I want it to be comparable if I'm going to shell out the extra bucks.
I don't really want to use XP. On-line activation and security issues still put me off.
If, however, Apple fail to deliver an impressive new hardware set next year, my next computer may well be PC.
I hope not, but you have to be realistic...
As a rule of thumb, there will always be a faster machine available if you're prepared to spend more, and whatever you buy will become obsolete somewhere between next day and next year. If speed is the only consideration, you'll probably be disappointed whatever you do and whenever you do it.
Decide your budget. Decide what you want to do with it. Find a shop where you can try it and see if it works for you. Work on the basis that you won't get the perfect machine, so decide whether whatever you're considering is good enough. Consider the software you'll want (and it's price!) as well as the hardware. Work on the basis that different people want different things from their computer(s) and get something that matchs your needs rather than whichever gets the loudest shouts for (or against).
And no, I'm not going to try and make a recommendation because I don't know enough about the ins and outs of all the details of what will meet your requirements.
I'm kind of caught between a rock and a hard place.
Speed is important for me: CD-burning, video-editing, animation-rendering. For that reason the last computer I bought was a Quicksilver. It was the obvious choice at the time.
I imagined that my next computer would be another Mac to replace my ageing PC. Now it's not so clear. From the informed posts by new P4/XP users on this site it's clear that PC could do the things I want it to do more quickly and, arguably, with comparable stability.
BUT, I'm an expat living in Japan. One huge advantage of OSX is unicode. My Mac has a Japanese OS, which is great for my wife, but when I'm using the Mac I can switch the user language to English. Much of our Japanese software is also unicode compatible, so we can buy one program that can be used in either of our native languages. This is very cost-effective in the long-run.
I'm prepared to wait until next year when, hopefully, Apple will be using G5 chips from IBM that are much closer to those from Intel/AMD. I don't need my Mac to be the fastest computer out there (the advantages of OSX would bridge the gap) but I want it to be comparable if I'm going to shell out the extra bucks.
I don't really want to use XP. On-line activation and security issues still put me off.
If, however, Apple fail to deliver an impressive new hardware set next year, my next computer may well be PC.
I hope not, but you have to be realistic...
As a rule of thumb, there will always be a faster machine available if you're prepared to spend more, and whatever you buy will become obsolete somewhere between next day and next year. If speed is the only consideration, you'll probably be disappointed whatever you do and whenever you do it.
Decide your budget. Decide what you want to do with it. Find a shop where you can try it and see if it works for you. Work on the basis that you won't get the perfect machine, so decide whether whatever you're considering is good enough. Consider the software you'll want (and it's price!) as well as the hardware. Work on the basis that different people want different things from their computer(s) and get something that matchs your needs rather than whichever gets the loudest shouts for (or against).
And no, I'm not going to try and make a recommendation because I don't know enough about the ins and outs of all the details of what will meet your requirements.
FF_productions
Jul 11, 09:54 PM
I cannot wait!!!
balamw
Apr 9, 03:50 PM
If it's too hot on bare legs, then common sense says, "don't put it on bare legs!" It's so simple, even a cave man could figure it out.
We keep a spare 0.5" 3 ring binder in the family room for the rare time when using the MacBook is potentially uncomfortable.
99% of the time, e.g. couch surfing, it doesn't get hot at all. When it can, e.g. gaming, you have plenty of warning before it really starts getting warm (the fans start balring, etc...) to reach for a barrier.
Most, if not all, notebooks from all vendors suggest not using the notebook on anything other than a hard surface like a desk or table. Do not use in bed, on a sofa, couch, rug or bare legs. A lot of that has to do with blocking the vents they rely on for air cooling.
B
We keep a spare 0.5" 3 ring binder in the family room for the rare time when using the MacBook is potentially uncomfortable.
99% of the time, e.g. couch surfing, it doesn't get hot at all. When it can, e.g. gaming, you have plenty of warning before it really starts getting warm (the fans start balring, etc...) to reach for a barrier.
Most, if not all, notebooks from all vendors suggest not using the notebook on anything other than a hard surface like a desk or table. Do not use in bed, on a sofa, couch, rug or bare legs. A lot of that has to do with blocking the vents they rely on for air cooling.
B
dgree03
Apr 21, 08:46 AM
Yeah, I wonder that too sometimes.
Twins or New York Yankees.
Series - New York Yankees
myamid
Sep 12, 06:45 PM
What!! HAHA, do you know your TV is downrezzing to 720? So, how does 1080i look better than 720? You can see the difference between downrezzed to 720p-1080i and 720p, but you can't see a difference between HD and a 480p DVD?!!
Either you need a new HD set, or a new HD provider. There is simply no comparison, really. HD is night and day, leaps and bounds better than DVD.
Apple's iTV would NEVER do HD, it simply is a chain between your HD tv and your mac that DOES do HD. Your computer is the player, so yes, I'd suspect I could record HD off my g5, and stream it to my HD set.
Can't wait!!!
My TV is actually 1080i native... upconverting 720p, not the other way around...
Either you need a new HD set, or a new HD provider. There is simply no comparison, really. HD is night and day, leaps and bounds better than DVD.
Apple's iTV would NEVER do HD, it simply is a chain between your HD tv and your mac that DOES do HD. Your computer is the player, so yes, I'd suspect I could record HD off my g5, and stream it to my HD set.
Can't wait!!!
My TV is actually 1080i native... upconverting 720p, not the other way around...
C N Reilly
Mar 18, 12:59 PM
I'm not worried about this. There's only two possibilities:
1) AT&T is just assuming anyone who uses more than X amount of data must be tethering, and shooting out threats. In such a case, all you have to do is call them and tell them you stream a radio station all day. They take you off the "evil tetherer" list; end of problem. (I've already seen two people post elsewhere that this has worked for them.)
2) There actually is something in the software/firmware that's enabling AT&T to tell who's tethering. In this case, the jailbreakers will just add some code to the next release to block or fool that bit of code. End of problem.
All signs thus far point to (1) being the truth, btw.
1) AT&T is just assuming anyone who uses more than X amount of data must be tethering, and shooting out threats. In such a case, all you have to do is call them and tell them you stream a radio station all day. They take you off the "evil tetherer" list; end of problem. (I've already seen two people post elsewhere that this has worked for them.)
2) There actually is something in the software/firmware that's enabling AT&T to tell who's tethering. In this case, the jailbreakers will just add some code to the next release to block or fool that bit of code. End of problem.
All signs thus far point to (1) being the truth, btw.
wordoflife
Mar 13, 01:48 AM
I hope the best for Japan. The pictures and videos are very horrifying and saddening.
dudemac
Mar 19, 07:51 AM
As of this morning sometime it seems that it is no longer able to download, but still allows browsing and account login.
*LTD*
Apr 28, 07:43 AM
No surprise the iPad is just a fad and people are starting to realize how limited it is. Its frustrating on a lot of cool websites and no file system makes it very limited.
The very second Apple Stores receive shipments of this fad, they're gone. I can't get a fad at the moment because everyone else and their dog buys them before I have a chance.
The very second Apple Stores receive shipments of this fad, they're gone. I can't get a fad at the moment because everyone else and their dog buys them before I have a chance.
MacinDoc
Apr 12, 11:04 PM
Yes, that was exactly my point. The people who know how to use the software are (sometimes) assistant editors, although I find the vast majority know how to do a few simple things, but do them well.. The original poster was implying you needed to be a hollywood film editor to judge technical capabilities, and I was saying they were the worst choice for just that reason.
The people who know the most about editing systems are the Sr. editors who work on heavy, effects based sequences that work in broadcast production environments (I'm not talking about me here). *They* are the ones who push systems to the limits and *they* are the ones who go to NAB. (They're still only 10% of that room)
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
Now if it turns out this is just the tip of the iceberg-- then we really could be in for a treat.
Who said anything about discontinuing Color and the rest of FCS? I can't imagine Apple would think that Color could be replaced by one-click color correction. And once and for all, can we stop saying that making the interface easier to use is making the product less professional? Is OS X less professional than DOS?
The people who know the most about editing systems are the Sr. editors who work on heavy, effects based sequences that work in broadcast production environments (I'm not talking about me here). *They* are the ones who push systems to the limits and *they* are the ones who go to NAB. (They're still only 10% of that room)
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
Now if it turns out this is just the tip of the iceberg-- then we really could be in for a treat.
Who said anything about discontinuing Color and the rest of FCS? I can't imagine Apple would think that Color could be replaced by one-click color correction. And once and for all, can we stop saying that making the interface easier to use is making the product less professional? Is OS X less professional than DOS?
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 02:17 PM
Sometimes it's the homo that's the problem.
Sorry, I don't understand that sentence.
Sorry, I don't understand that sentence.
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה