Edot
Aug 7, 10:11 PM
Computers were invented ages ago... I see nothing new. :rolleyes:
slackpacker
Apr 10, 06:43 AM
Finally, while I don't know whether software stocks are different from hardware stocks, I just checked Apple's website, and FCS, FCE, and FCServer are readily available for shipping within 24 hours.
I'm sure they will still be shipping since they support the current Final Cut Studio 3 reeaallllyyy well. Lets face it the thing thats coming out will not support the old Plug-ins or workflows and will not be the replacement for FCP that everyone was expecting.
I'm sure they will still be shipping since they support the current Final Cut Studio 3 reeaallllyyy well. Lets face it the thing thats coming out will not support the old Plug-ins or workflows and will not be the replacement for FCP that everyone was expecting.
littleman23408
Dec 1, 05:27 PM
Sorry, Bandit, I don't have tips for the licenses. I am not that far into them yet.
Took out the Lotus challenge in a snap. The first few times I came close to finishing it, I would have had 1st and beat it, but I either ran into the grass, or the person in first I was about to pass slowed down to much and I nailed him. But, the first time I actually completed the two laps, I was 1st. If someone needs tips I will post it.
Took out the Lotus challenge in a snap. The first few times I came close to finishing it, I would have had 1st and beat it, but I either ran into the grass, or the person in first I was about to pass slowed down to much and I nailed him. But, the first time I actually completed the two laps, I was 1st. If someone needs tips I will post it.
leekohler
Mar 1, 10:23 AM
Lee, you should already know my answer to that question. It's an emphatic "no." Nor do I support the gay rights movement.
I don't tell others what to do, but that doesn't mean I think it's all right for them do everything they want to do. I'll share my opinions with others if they're willing to hear them. I don't want to control anyone, and I will not be a codependent caregiver. I refuse to protect others from negative consequences when they need to learn from them.
But you ARE trying to control others Bill. It's quite obvious. There are no negative consequences inherent to being gay. I'm a 43 year old man, and quite happy. The only negative consequences I've suffered have been at the hands of people like you, who think you know how everyone should live and try to force your beliefs on us with laws. You absolutely want to control others, or at the very least, impose your punishments on us.
My parents, especially my Mom, hated to see me do some foolish things when I was a boy. They let me walk the half mile to the steakhouse when they knew that I probably would have been too tired to walk back home. They let me stand outdoors in the winter when I tried to run away from home in the winter. The front porch was too icy for me to stand on, so I couldn't walk down the steps.
Hmm...but did they make any laws against you doing any of those things?
I believe that people with same-sex attractions are endangering themselves at least physically when they have sex with each other. So I'll post a link to some evidence for my opinion (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html). Notice, the document's author is a medical doctor.
There are risks inherent in any sexual activity Bill, heterosexual or homosexual. I'm well aware of the risks of both. Apparently, you seem to feel that all gay men engage in sodomy, which is far from the truth. Also, many of these statistics are based on the results of promiscuous behavior. Gay people marrying would discourage promiscuity, which would most likely reduce those statistics. One would think you should be pro gay marriage rights in that case. But hey, we all know that's not what your real concern is. Your concern is to get everyone to conform to your rules.
I don't tell others what to do, but that doesn't mean I think it's all right for them do everything they want to do. I'll share my opinions with others if they're willing to hear them. I don't want to control anyone, and I will not be a codependent caregiver. I refuse to protect others from negative consequences when they need to learn from them.
But you ARE trying to control others Bill. It's quite obvious. There are no negative consequences inherent to being gay. I'm a 43 year old man, and quite happy. The only negative consequences I've suffered have been at the hands of people like you, who think you know how everyone should live and try to force your beliefs on us with laws. You absolutely want to control others, or at the very least, impose your punishments on us.
My parents, especially my Mom, hated to see me do some foolish things when I was a boy. They let me walk the half mile to the steakhouse when they knew that I probably would have been too tired to walk back home. They let me stand outdoors in the winter when I tried to run away from home in the winter. The front porch was too icy for me to stand on, so I couldn't walk down the steps.
Hmm...but did they make any laws against you doing any of those things?
I believe that people with same-sex attractions are endangering themselves at least physically when they have sex with each other. So I'll post a link to some evidence for my opinion (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html). Notice, the document's author is a medical doctor.
There are risks inherent in any sexual activity Bill, heterosexual or homosexual. I'm well aware of the risks of both. Apparently, you seem to feel that all gay men engage in sodomy, which is far from the truth. Also, many of these statistics are based on the results of promiscuous behavior. Gay people marrying would discourage promiscuity, which would most likely reduce those statistics. One would think you should be pro gay marriage rights in that case. But hey, we all know that's not what your real concern is. Your concern is to get everyone to conform to your rules.
Iconoclysm
Apr 19, 08:38 PM
The point is no one will ever confuse this with Apple's iPhone... But what Samsung is doing now is another story.
If you look at each item that Apple takes exception with individually it seems silly, but when you put them all together in a single device it's a twin to the iPhone... An iClone.:rolleyes:
Actually, the point was that Samsung did not have a grid of icons on the F700 until after the iPhone released...so Apple did not copy Samsung. Eventually, what you say is true.
If you look at each item that Apple takes exception with individually it seems silly, but when you put them all together in a single device it's a twin to the iPhone... An iClone.:rolleyes:
Actually, the point was that Samsung did not have a grid of icons on the F700 until after the iPhone released...so Apple did not copy Samsung. Eventually, what you say is true.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
andrewag
Aug 7, 03:25 PM
Autumn is ages away!! Damn it!!!
Have to admit i'm not very impressed at the moment *cough* but i'm staying optimisitic that when i read more into it and as more information comes out there will be something that grabs my attention.
I'm kinda bummed that even with Vista sneaking up that Aqua hasn't changed much.
*stays optimistic*
Have to admit i'm not very impressed at the moment *cough* but i'm staying optimisitic that when i read more into it and as more information comes out there will be something that grabs my attention.
I'm kinda bummed that even with Vista sneaking up that Aqua hasn't changed much.
*stays optimistic*
gnasher729
Aug 17, 09:17 AM
Edit: Please ignore this post, I can't count!!!
If you buy a Xeon 5160 (3.0GHz) at the moment they are �570. Apple are charging �530 to upgrade from Xeon 5150 (2.66GHz) to the Xeon 5160. Bearing in mind that you can probably sell the original 2.66Gz chip for around �300, it would be cheaper to buy the lower spec Mac Pro and upgrade yourself.
It's not something I would do myself, but some enterprising dealer could easily do that. In US prices, difference between two 3.00 GHz and two 2.66 GHz chips is roughly $300, and you could sell the 2.66 GHz ones at a premium because they had "extra burn-in testing" :-)
Seriously, the problem is getting money for the 2.66 chips.
If you buy a Xeon 5160 (3.0GHz) at the moment they are �570. Apple are charging �530 to upgrade from Xeon 5150 (2.66GHz) to the Xeon 5160. Bearing in mind that you can probably sell the original 2.66Gz chip for around �300, it would be cheaper to buy the lower spec Mac Pro and upgrade yourself.
It's not something I would do myself, but some enterprising dealer could easily do that. In US prices, difference between two 3.00 GHz and two 2.66 GHz chips is roughly $300, and you could sell the 2.66 GHz ones at a premium because they had "extra burn-in testing" :-)
Seriously, the problem is getting money for the 2.66 chips.
heyjp
Nov 28, 11:06 PM
I think having Apple (which of course gets passed on to us users) paying a royalty per iPod is a no-brainer, let's do it!!! The logic is that people are playing illegal copies of Universal Studios songs, therefore, Apple should pay a royalty for every iPod to cover.
So, Apple, pay the royalty, which should logically imply that there is no need to EVER buy music from Universal since the royalty is now covered.
HEY UNIVERSAL... can't have your cake and eat it too.
jp
So, Apple, pay the royalty, which should logically imply that there is no need to EVER buy music from Universal since the royalty is now covered.
HEY UNIVERSAL... can't have your cake and eat it too.
jp
azentropy
Apr 5, 04:46 PM
Hopefully there will be new iMacs to go with it. Refresh please!
and Mac Pros!
and entry level MacBook!
and Mac minis!
and ...
and Mac Pros!
and entry level MacBook!
and Mac minis!
and ...
SPUY767
Jul 27, 04:03 PM
It's always a little alarming when a post starts "sorry if I missed it but..."
The 2.7 G5 will be the highest clocked chip in a mac for a while, but probably not the fastest. In a number of benchmarks, Yonah has already beaten dual G5's, the conroes and woodrests will likely widen the gap even more.
I'm sorry. I thought that it was adequately implied that I meant the fastest chip, to date. Anyway, that's what I meant if I've been misunderstood.
The 2.7 G5 will be the highest clocked chip in a mac for a while, but probably not the fastest. In a number of benchmarks, Yonah has already beaten dual G5's, the conroes and woodrests will likely widen the gap even more.
I'm sorry. I thought that it was adequately implied that I meant the fastest chip, to date. Anyway, that's what I meant if I've been misunderstood.
aafuss1
Aug 6, 10:20 PM
Jhonen Vasquez-would be a great guest at a Apple keynote, when Steve does a update on TV shows-like WWDC or a iPod event.
TripHop
Jun 14, 06:24 PM
If you get a reservation pin, you will have a phone on launch day, bottom line. No pin, no guarantee of a phone. With the pin, you can pick it up when you want. At opening or 8pm at night. I would make damn sure i am the 1st person in line at 1PM EST to be sure you get a PIN.
We just cant call it a pre-order, and cant take money before the 24th.
Be srue you talk to the store manager, and again, if you get something other than what i said, call another store.My Radio Shack Manager knows nothing about PIN numbers and is opening at normal 9AM tomorrow. Says he still doesn't know exactly how the pre-orders will be conducted. Hasn't heard from corporate yet. Still in the dark he says. :confused:
We just cant call it a pre-order, and cant take money before the 24th.
Be srue you talk to the store manager, and again, if you get something other than what i said, call another store.My Radio Shack Manager knows nothing about PIN numbers and is opening at normal 9AM tomorrow. Says he still doesn't know exactly how the pre-orders will be conducted. Hasn't heard from corporate yet. Still in the dark he says. :confused:
NebulaClash
Apr 27, 10:40 AM
I'm a little confused at the magnitude of people's reaction here.
It's Apple. If Apple does something, it's the end of the world. If everyone else does something similar, *shrug*
Apple does well in the market place, so it behooves the tech media to attack Apple as often as their partners wish them to. Standard PR tactics.
It's Apple. If Apple does something, it's the end of the world. If everyone else does something similar, *shrug*
Apple does well in the market place, so it behooves the tech media to attack Apple as often as their partners wish them to. Standard PR tactics.
jvmxtra
Apr 6, 04:04 PM
Wow. All the hype and pent up anti-Apple demand and all they could muster was 100K units. Very poor. Where are the other Android tablets?
As for the RIM Playbook, that **** is DOA.
WebOS will be way to late to the game but HP has huge retail distribution.
I think Apple has won this one.
can't stop staring at your icon pic.. NICE!!!! :eek:
As for the RIM Playbook, that **** is DOA.
WebOS will be way to late to the game but HP has huge retail distribution.
I think Apple has won this one.
can't stop staring at your icon pic.. NICE!!!! :eek:
yac_moda
Jul 20, 10:25 PM
I just applied to a job at MS, its not the first time either last time they emailed me and asked for more information concerning the position -- had to answer questions on line :eek: :mad: :p
This time I had to create a new profile though and in the profile where the resume was everything worked fine ACCEPT !!!
I could not enter ANY text in the field for the RESUME !!
I could only put 0 text in the RESUME FIELD !
So I submitted for the job, a resume name, but NO resume !!!!!!!
That's .NET technology for you ...
Don't you LOVE Microsoft ;) :D
This time I had to create a new profile though and in the profile where the resume was everything worked fine ACCEPT !!!
I could not enter ANY text in the field for the RESUME !!
I could only put 0 text in the RESUME FIELD !
So I submitted for the job, a resume name, but NO resume !!!!!!!
That's .NET technology for you ...
Don't you LOVE Microsoft ;) :D
Xenious
Jul 14, 05:27 PM
Dual drive slots are cool, but the design is boring. Don't get me wrong I love my G5 powermac I was just hoping for a new or different design for the next ones...Maybe the same but square or smaller or something. Oh well it doesn't matter I'm still buying. :)
Multimedia
Jul 21, 12:51 PM
All I will say is that you are not a typical user. You are not even close to typical.
OK. So maybe you need ten thousand cores and three million gigabytes of RAM. Don't think for an instant that the majority of the world shares your requirements.I may not be typical today, but in future a majority of Western Pop-Culture type users - not the world - will want to be able to archive HDTV to mp4 off their original recordings in a flash and only more cores will solve that problem.
And I never said anything about needing ten thousand cores etc. I think it is quite realistic for the majority of Western Pop-Culture Type Nationalities ONLY users to need 16 or more cores by 2010. Thank God we will begin to get them by 2008. :eek:
I don't begin to pretend we are discussing the world's users' needs here. Only Westerners with heavy Pop-Culture Multimedia type usage - Video iPods HDTV Sat Radio etc.
I believe that there is a fundamental lack of imagination on this front - because it hasn't been possible to date, therefore it isn't in the consciousness of many users yet as a possibility they would think of doing. It's not so much that I'm atypical as it is I am already thinking outside the box of how we've been doing stuff to date. Soon many will begin to see the new ways we will be able to get stuff done faster thanks to more Cores inside.
OK. So maybe you need ten thousand cores and three million gigabytes of RAM. Don't think for an instant that the majority of the world shares your requirements.I may not be typical today, but in future a majority of Western Pop-Culture type users - not the world - will want to be able to archive HDTV to mp4 off their original recordings in a flash and only more cores will solve that problem.
And I never said anything about needing ten thousand cores etc. I think it is quite realistic for the majority of Western Pop-Culture Type Nationalities ONLY users to need 16 or more cores by 2010. Thank God we will begin to get them by 2008. :eek:
I don't begin to pretend we are discussing the world's users' needs here. Only Westerners with heavy Pop-Culture Multimedia type usage - Video iPods HDTV Sat Radio etc.
I believe that there is a fundamental lack of imagination on this front - because it hasn't been possible to date, therefore it isn't in the consciousness of many users yet as a possibility they would think of doing. It's not so much that I'm atypical as it is I am already thinking outside the box of how we've been doing stuff to date. Soon many will begin to see the new ways we will be able to get stuff done faster thanks to more Cores inside.
gomakeitreal
Aug 5, 04:11 PM
I can't wait for Monday. I'll be working that day, so I am going to try to watch the keynote before reading any updates. I even have the Quicktime Events page bookmarked. :D I figured I would be more surprised by taking this route.
This is the first WWDC I'm really looking forward to, mainly because of what we're going to see... Leopard in action! :D
Edit: Peace, that's not entirely true. None of us know whether Apple will release Cinema Displays with iSights built-in. I'd say it is unlikely, but you never know until it actually happens.
what is the link for the QT page? :p
This is the first WWDC I'm really looking forward to, mainly because of what we're going to see... Leopard in action! :D
Edit: Peace, that's not entirely true. None of us know whether Apple will release Cinema Displays with iSights built-in. I'd say it is unlikely, but you never know until it actually happens.
what is the link for the QT page? :p
intlplby
Nov 28, 09:53 PM
i would love if the government changed the royalty law to extend only to the artists and not the record companies.....
i.e. "okay, we'll extend the copyright to 50 years or the life of the artist, but the catch is that only the artists gets the royalties"
i'd love to see the big record companies cut out.....
it's totally possible for artists to get more and for us to pay less.....
i'd include the mastering technician in there too.... they are very important as well
i.e. "okay, we'll extend the copyright to 50 years or the life of the artist, but the catch is that only the artists gets the royalties"
i'd love to see the big record companies cut out.....
it's totally possible for artists to get more and for us to pay less.....
i'd include the mastering technician in there too.... they are very important as well
SeanM
Mar 26, 02:04 AM
I think Apple will probably charge $79 for Lion and distribute it via the Mac App Store (at least as an option).
Same price as the iLife suite and smack dab in the middle of Leopard ($129) and Snow Leopard's pricing ($29). That'd be the sweet spot IMO.
Same price as the iLife suite and smack dab in the middle of Leopard ($129) and Snow Leopard's pricing ($29). That'd be the sweet spot IMO.
Quahog
Apr 8, 07:53 AM
I work at Best Buy, and I can tell you this "rumor" is not true.
First, we do not have daily quotas on iPad sales, although we do have overall budget goals as any company would. iPads had no impact on this.
iPad 2's have been extremely hard to keep in stock, and at least for my store and all the stores in my region, they would sell out within hours of receiving a pretty good sized shipment. (Although the Verizon ones dont sell as well as others, they still sell out too) We did not hold anything back... do you think we like the hundreds of calls and dozens of people asking us if we have any in stock? We took care of every customer we could. In checking inventory levels at other stores, it was zero's all the way down the list.
We are experiencing inventory issues with the iPad. Be it simple unexpected demand, the earthquake in Japan, or Apple wanting to take care of customers through their website and retail store before big box stores... I dont know. But stores certainly are not sitting on them.
First, we do not have daily quotas on iPad sales, although we do have overall budget goals as any company would. iPads had no impact on this.
iPad 2's have been extremely hard to keep in stock, and at least for my store and all the stores in my region, they would sell out within hours of receiving a pretty good sized shipment. (Although the Verizon ones dont sell as well as others, they still sell out too) We did not hold anything back... do you think we like the hundreds of calls and dozens of people asking us if we have any in stock? We took care of every customer we could. In checking inventory levels at other stores, it was zero's all the way down the list.
We are experiencing inventory issues with the iPad. Be it simple unexpected demand, the earthquake in Japan, or Apple wanting to take care of customers through their website and retail store before big box stores... I dont know. But stores certainly are not sitting on them.
ChickenSwartz
Jul 27, 11:54 AM
Has anyone ever thought that the reasons the MBPs run hot is because they were originally designed to have a cooler chip in them...Merom.
I know it had been rumored that Apple originally wanted to wait for Merom but "settled" for Yonah to get Intel in faster. Or maybe I am just trying to give myself hope that I will get a super cool MBP in a month (or less?).
I know it had been rumored that Apple originally wanted to wait for Merom but "settled" for Yonah to get Intel in faster. Or maybe I am just trying to give myself hope that I will get a super cool MBP in a month (or less?).
skunk
Mar 23, 05:34 PM
I keep seeing these pointless ad hominems popping up in your posts. It really is getting tiresome.Isn't that an ad feminam?