kingdonk
Feb 28, 07:13 PM
work group manager and x-grid manager
DaveGee
Apr 16, 03:48 PM
And hopefully Fiore will do a cartoon about it :p ... well maybe not, his app could be banned again :eek:
Yea unless he's awarded another Pulitzer that is... :rolleyes:
Apple is really disgusting me with this $#*(%&*( behavior. They really need to completely reevaluate their criteria and make it CRYSTAL EFFING CLEAR what IS and was IS NOT acceptable and then stand by it. None of this 'reject Google Voice because it duplicates functionality' and then 'approve the Opera web browser'. Reject an APP because it 'ridicules public figures' and then plead that the author to resubmit it once he's awarded a Pulitzer...
This wishy washy crap is really showing everyone just how UNDERHANDED they treat the whole process.
Yea unless he's awarded another Pulitzer that is... :rolleyes:
Apple is really disgusting me with this $#*(%&*( behavior. They really need to completely reevaluate their criteria and make it CRYSTAL EFFING CLEAR what IS and was IS NOT acceptable and then stand by it. None of this 'reject Google Voice because it duplicates functionality' and then 'approve the Opera web browser'. Reject an APP because it 'ridicules public figures' and then plead that the author to resubmit it once he's awarded a Pulitzer...
This wishy washy crap is really showing everyone just how UNDERHANDED they treat the whole process.
jakeDude
Sep 1, 07:41 PM
I already took it up with Developer Relations aka dev support, they said sorry soon. I actually got the disc anyway from my co-worker who went to WWDC, but I'm annoyed because I work with other select developers on a project, and I'd like to start checking out documentation on core animation, ...
This is the first year that I went to WWDC and I am a ADC Select developer like you. However, the difference is I had to pay 100% out of pocket to go. My employer does not use Macs and I had to do it on my own.* At the conference, I met a lot of developers whose companies paid for the trip and they stayed in the Hyatts ($200 a night).. My gf and I stayed at the crappy hotel by 7th street which was in a unsafe part of SOMA plus I used a week of my own PTO etc..*
It sure was alot of money ~$2300.* I sure could have done alot with that but I used it for my education and check out WWDC.* It really adds alot of value to the conference to really get the new bits. * I do not think it is fair to wait for the general rollout to ADC if you are charging so much for the conference. *This year, there was not a lot of new things besides Leopard.. Leopard was the star show and only partially revealed. Therefore the revealed parts and Leopard sessions were the key points and those were pretty tight lipped and the mostly the value of going.
So,* why should you be able to see the sessions and get the same seed three weeks later? *Its not fair to independent developers like me and gives my project a jump start against potential competetors like you..* **
I skipped last two years WWDC and waited until Tiger was ADC seeded and have been watching the 2005 sessions without going to WWDC the same as you..* So, i have been on both sides of the fence.* Once you pay for WWDC yourself, then you really understand that its right to let the WWDC get the first drink from the water fountain and drink for awhile.
-JakeDude*
This is the first year that I went to WWDC and I am a ADC Select developer like you. However, the difference is I had to pay 100% out of pocket to go. My employer does not use Macs and I had to do it on my own.* At the conference, I met a lot of developers whose companies paid for the trip and they stayed in the Hyatts ($200 a night).. My gf and I stayed at the crappy hotel by 7th street which was in a unsafe part of SOMA plus I used a week of my own PTO etc..*
It sure was alot of money ~$2300.* I sure could have done alot with that but I used it for my education and check out WWDC.* It really adds alot of value to the conference to really get the new bits. * I do not think it is fair to wait for the general rollout to ADC if you are charging so much for the conference. *This year, there was not a lot of new things besides Leopard.. Leopard was the star show and only partially revealed. Therefore the revealed parts and Leopard sessions were the key points and those were pretty tight lipped and the mostly the value of going.
So,* why should you be able to see the sessions and get the same seed three weeks later? *Its not fair to independent developers like me and gives my project a jump start against potential competetors like you..* **
I skipped last two years WWDC and waited until Tiger was ADC seeded and have been watching the 2005 sessions without going to WWDC the same as you..* So, i have been on both sides of the fence.* Once you pay for WWDC yourself, then you really understand that its right to let the WWDC get the first drink from the water fountain and drink for awhile.
-JakeDude*
KnightWRX
May 6, 06:47 AM
Even under Linux, it's easier than in Windows.
Networking is only hard if you have no clue what you are doing. Let's face it, most of it has been hidden away under layers and layers of auto-configuration that every OS under the sun has supported for decades now.
You barely even have to worry about cabling anymore, with MDI-X.
And personally, I find the Network and Sharing center confusing in Windows. It's like everything is buried way too deep. Windows 2000 was just perfect as far as the Windows implementation of a networking GUI configuration tool goes. It's been downhill ever since. Just give me flat text files any day of the week though.
Networking is only hard if you have no clue what you are doing. Let's face it, most of it has been hidden away under layers and layers of auto-configuration that every OS under the sun has supported for decades now.
You barely even have to worry about cabling anymore, with MDI-X.
And personally, I find the Network and Sharing center confusing in Windows. It's like everything is buried way too deep. Windows 2000 was just perfect as far as the Windows implementation of a networking GUI configuration tool goes. It's been downhill ever since. Just give me flat text files any day of the week though.
more...
MikeTheC
Nov 3, 01:19 AM
I'd like to tackle a few points in the discussion here.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
yorkshire
Dec 21, 06:28 PM
Thanks, but I don't need to grow up. Perhaps you should try accepting other people's opinions without resorting to insults - a much more significant indicator of maturity (unless you're actually asking me to grow older faster?)
There is absolutely zero logic to the rest of your post either. How has this helped the music industry exactly? As I have said all along, the UK chart is a glorified popularity contest. The most popular record, at the time, wins. People don't just buy the xfactor winners single because of the name - they buy it because they like it (and it's usually more than a few thousand btw). Whether you, or I, agree with that is irrelevant. It is fact. There has also been no significant reduction in music piracy as a result of this campaign.
There has been no 'rebellion'. All the campaign has done is increased the amount of money Sony Music Entertainment have taken in this Christmas (both of the Artists are attributed to Sony). This goes back to my original point about the whole thing being meaningless (unless of course the aim was to simply make more money for Sony). There will still be the xfactor next year, and the winner will still sell a barrowload of records.
I have been on the group on Facebook a few times, and many people have stated this is the 1st time they've downloaded a song legally. I know it isn't going to stop piracy, but it is definitely a step in the right direction. And you can't say there has been no reduction in piracy yet- its only been 1 day. If it gets just a handful of people to pay for songs rather than pirate them, then at least its done some good.
And how is the whole thing meaningless? At the end of the day, the chap who made the group didn't know Rage and Joe were both with Sony. He didn't know that he'd be (slightly) benefitting Cowell by choosing Rage. There was an interview on the BBC where he spoke about this, and he didn't care. All he wanted was a different single at the number 1 spot this year, and all everyone else who joined the group wanted was a different single at number 1. Thankfully Rage won.
And it doesn't matter if people don't like the song, I for one would have bought almost anything just to keep X Factoe from being number 1.
There is absolutely zero logic to the rest of your post either. How has this helped the music industry exactly? As I have said all along, the UK chart is a glorified popularity contest. The most popular record, at the time, wins. People don't just buy the xfactor winners single because of the name - they buy it because they like it (and it's usually more than a few thousand btw). Whether you, or I, agree with that is irrelevant. It is fact. There has also been no significant reduction in music piracy as a result of this campaign.
There has been no 'rebellion'. All the campaign has done is increased the amount of money Sony Music Entertainment have taken in this Christmas (both of the Artists are attributed to Sony). This goes back to my original point about the whole thing being meaningless (unless of course the aim was to simply make more money for Sony). There will still be the xfactor next year, and the winner will still sell a barrowload of records.
I have been on the group on Facebook a few times, and many people have stated this is the 1st time they've downloaded a song legally. I know it isn't going to stop piracy, but it is definitely a step in the right direction. And you can't say there has been no reduction in piracy yet- its only been 1 day. If it gets just a handful of people to pay for songs rather than pirate them, then at least its done some good.
And how is the whole thing meaningless? At the end of the day, the chap who made the group didn't know Rage and Joe were both with Sony. He didn't know that he'd be (slightly) benefitting Cowell by choosing Rage. There was an interview on the BBC where he spoke about this, and he didn't care. All he wanted was a different single at the number 1 spot this year, and all everyone else who joined the group wanted was a different single at number 1. Thankfully Rage won.
And it doesn't matter if people don't like the song, I for one would have bought almost anything just to keep X Factoe from being number 1.
more...
Rodimus Prime
Apr 7, 05:15 PM
The tea party is the republican party. There is NO tea party as third party. That's a complete fallacy. If they weren't a wholly owned faction of the Republican party, there would be tea party democrats too.
Pop quiz - name one tea party candidate who ran as a Democrat or name one elected official who claims to be a tea party member or supporter who doesn't vote with the Republicans.
I would disagree with that.
The Tea Party is to the GOP as the Blue Dogs are to the democrats.
Yes they are democrats but they are a sub group of them. Just the Tea Party GOP is a radical sub group of the GOP.
Pop quiz - name one tea party candidate who ran as a Democrat or name one elected official who claims to be a tea party member or supporter who doesn't vote with the Republicans.
I would disagree with that.
The Tea Party is to the GOP as the Blue Dogs are to the democrats.
Yes they are democrats but they are a sub group of them. Just the Tea Party GOP is a radical sub group of the GOP.
longball11
May 24, 04:35 PM
Does starcraft 2 work with the new macbook pro 15'' graphic card?
more...
Doctor Q
Mar 20, 11:09 PM
what kind of school would need the ipad over a mac or pc?
It's up to innovative schools to decide whether, and how, iPads have a role in schools. They might have good uses in classrooms, libraries, labs, reading clubs, alongside computers, instead of computers, or who knows.
It's up to innovative schools to decide whether, and how, iPads have a role in schools. They might have good uses in classrooms, libraries, labs, reading clubs, alongside computers, instead of computers, or who knows.
macgeek18
Apr 18, 11:19 PM
$4.39 for unleaded.
more...
MattSepeta
Mar 29, 11:37 AM
oh man.. why does this thread have 3 pages???
Easy answer in a paragraph: EF lenses are designed with a full-frame camera in mind. EF-S lenses are designed with a Crop (1.6x) camera in mind.
Differences between them? Very little. Example: I used my 11-16 EF-S on my 5DII until I got a EF UWA. Drawback? I could only use the 16mm of it if I wanted to avoid a wild vignette, because the EF-S lens was designed for a CROP camera, one that would crop the outer edges of the image, thus eliminating the vignette.
If you put a hypothetical 50mm EF-S and a 50mm EF on any given camera, assuming the mounts worked, the image would be exactly the same.
however, if you put a 50mm EF (which work on both FF and crop cameras) on a FF vs a crop camera, the images will be different. On the FF you will have a true 50mm FOv, whereas on the crop camera (1.6x) you will have essentially an 80mm FOV, because the crop camera crops the image to result at 1.6x the size of a FF cameras FOV.
something like that.
So: The lenses are not any different really.
Easy answer in a paragraph: EF lenses are designed with a full-frame camera in mind. EF-S lenses are designed with a Crop (1.6x) camera in mind.
Differences between them? Very little. Example: I used my 11-16 EF-S on my 5DII until I got a EF UWA. Drawback? I could only use the 16mm of it if I wanted to avoid a wild vignette, because the EF-S lens was designed for a CROP camera, one that would crop the outer edges of the image, thus eliminating the vignette.
If you put a hypothetical 50mm EF-S and a 50mm EF on any given camera, assuming the mounts worked, the image would be exactly the same.
however, if you put a 50mm EF (which work on both FF and crop cameras) on a FF vs a crop camera, the images will be different. On the FF you will have a true 50mm FOv, whereas on the crop camera (1.6x) you will have essentially an 80mm FOV, because the crop camera crops the image to result at 1.6x the size of a FF cameras FOV.
something like that.
So: The lenses are not any different really.
GodBless
Sep 1, 03:58 AM
Just because they are improving this build doesnt mean there aren't some major apps or system features they are not revealing to developers.
They could be updating another version of the OS alongside this one with extra goodness!, and the updates are most likely to be fixes based on what the devs tell them is buggy.
I think they have purposefully left stuff out of Leopard for the moment so that it is even more shocking when it is all revealed at the launch of Leopard! thats what apple does best, shocks the public with "one more thing!"I have to agree. I am certain that when Steve Jobs said that there are "Top Secret" features he wasn't joking. Sure we have minor updates but that can't compete with Vista and those features aren't really good enough to be "Top Secret" after all -- how valuable to Microsoft and appealing to buyers are those small features anyway?
My assumption is that Apple will blast Vista away with new Leopard features that haven't been revealed to anyone yet -- including those developers who are currently testing Leopard -- just wait for MacWorld San Francisco (MWSF) in January.
They could be updating another version of the OS alongside this one with extra goodness!, and the updates are most likely to be fixes based on what the devs tell them is buggy.
I think they have purposefully left stuff out of Leopard for the moment so that it is even more shocking when it is all revealed at the launch of Leopard! thats what apple does best, shocks the public with "one more thing!"I have to agree. I am certain that when Steve Jobs said that there are "Top Secret" features he wasn't joking. Sure we have minor updates but that can't compete with Vista and those features aren't really good enough to be "Top Secret" after all -- how valuable to Microsoft and appealing to buyers are those small features anyway?
My assumption is that Apple will blast Vista away with new Leopard features that haven't been revealed to anyone yet -- including those developers who are currently testing Leopard -- just wait for MacWorld San Francisco (MWSF) in January.
more...
KohPhiPhi
Apr 20, 05:54 PM
My MBA Ultimate is perfect for me right now as my sole working machine. This is simply a super balanced laptop for those seeking mobility and reasonable performance. No need for me to fix what's not broken right now.
I won't be jumping in on a SB+HD3000 upgrade, so I will pass on the next update until Ivy comes out (as long as it's paired with a decent GPU and not with a lame HD3000-like).
I won't be jumping in on a SB+HD3000 upgrade, so I will pass on the next update until Ivy comes out (as long as it's paired with a decent GPU and not with a lame HD3000-like).
dwright1974
Apr 12, 02:06 PM
aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh I want to buy this!!!! But alas I cannot afford it at present, well it depends on if I get a 3DS next weekend or not. But having used the demo of Outlook I love it, much better then Mail IMO.
If anyone knows of a cheaper price then around �160 in the UK let me know cause that's the best I've found.
Are you in education? Or do you have children in education?
If so, then you can buy it for just under �39 from RM (www.RM.com/thebasement).
Full disclosure: I work for RM.
HTH
D
If anyone knows of a cheaper price then around �160 in the UK let me know cause that's the best I've found.
Are you in education? Or do you have children in education?
If so, then you can buy it for just under �39 from RM (www.RM.com/thebasement).
Full disclosure: I work for RM.
HTH
D
more...
Mr Skills
Jun 18, 03:31 PM
Does the mac mini support sd card peripherals (modems etc.)? I believe the capability is included in the sdxc spec.
McGiord
Apr 5, 06:35 PM
This is great, now :apple: seem to be back on track to continuously release improved hardware technology.
It was sad when they took away the Firewire out of the iPod.
Something like the European requirement, in the US the cable TV providers have to provide firewire equipped cable boxes, so the users can get Firewire video out them. Normally you have to ask for it, and they have to give it to you.
Thunderbolt will kick ass.
It was sad when they took away the Firewire out of the iPod.
Something like the European requirement, in the US the cable TV providers have to provide firewire equipped cable boxes, so the users can get Firewire video out them. Normally you have to ask for it, and they have to give it to you.
Thunderbolt will kick ass.
more...
dethmaShine
May 2, 12:43 PM
But what does Consumer Reports say about the network connection of this phone?
:)
:)
Sydde
Apr 5, 12:19 PM
The u.s had the opportunity to thrive, especially after the cold war, but instead the country decided it would focus itself on wars, and therefore continue to spend more money than it could afford. This worked itself through the economy ( greed - irresponsible loans, derivatives ( which are a total con ) etc which lead to the banking crisis didn't help ), and now the u.s finds itself in the pits.
Hey, you had the potential but you decided to throw it all away...
US has several shortcomings that have converged to create this situation.
Go to Food Network Humor to
Hey, you had the potential but you decided to throw it all away...
US has several shortcomings that have converged to create this situation.
sbrhwkp3
Nov 2, 09:19 AM
Hopefully it's more due to people switching over from windows rather than old mac owners buying new macs. Obviously, a person who owns a mac now is going to buy another one eventually. The swtichers are going to help apple in the long run.
imwoblin
Apr 1, 09:49 AM
I've used the TW iPad app for a couple of weeks and it's not bad. These knucklehead content providers think they can charge you for every screen you watch their so called entertainment. I can only imagine that by the time all is said and done, the TW app will only have home shopping channels available. These content providers, whether they be music or tv keep trying to keep their old obsolete business model intact and seem to fight the advancement of technology. If they had their way, there would be a paid app for every tv channel!
franswa za
Mar 13, 10:39 AM
here we go again....... slow weekend rumours..............
Jvhowube
Oct 25, 07:26 AM
I ordered a MBP last evening, and cancelled my order late last night after realizing that it is WAY more than I need. I have been waiting for this Merom update for ages, but I guess I'll have to wait a bit longer for the MMB. The MBP was just way too over-the-top for my use, and way too expensive for what I need.
So now that I'm on this bandwagon...
What's the speculation on a timeframe? Before Thanksgiving?
So now that I'm on this bandwagon...
What's the speculation on a timeframe? Before Thanksgiving?
smaffei
Mar 23, 01:17 PM
...it worked reliably from my Mac Mini (2010) to my iPad 2 without saying "you are not authorized to play this video" every other time, I would care.
ajkrause
Sep 1, 01:45 AM
Anything asthetically new in this version, or perhaps some new small features?
Nope. Nothing has changed in the UI and no noteable new features. As far as the super secret Leopard features, dongmin, they still remain super secret although the few new features in the preview are quite handy and have already become "How did I ever live without this?" kind of valuable to me.
I haven't noticed any major changes so far since the update. The issues I was having before persist though not as often and they are minor. The Leopard Preview is surprisingly stable unlike someone else's beta OS... no names ::cough::Microsoft::cough::
Parallels Desktop for Mac works fine under Leopard BEFORE installing the recently released Parallels Desktop beta update. If you install the Parallels Desktop beta update, colors in the app buttons/windows are distorted (http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/9683/snapshot20060831231144xj6.jpg) and this Leopard update does not seem to remedy that. Also, as stated above, the build number has changed (http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/978/snapshot20060831230551mc2.jpg).
iChat continues to be buggy during one way video chats and Parallels after the update continues to have its issues (besides the color distortion) but prior to the Parallels update, these issues were not present so Parallels Desktop 1848 seems to be completely compatible with the Leopard preview but not Parallels 1862.
I should also note that fan behavior on my MacBook Pro with the Leopard Developer Preview (10.5) is excellent... immensely better than with Tiger (10.4.7) but that was true even before I installed the Leopard Preview Update 1.0. :D
Nope. Nothing has changed in the UI and no noteable new features. As far as the super secret Leopard features, dongmin, they still remain super secret although the few new features in the preview are quite handy and have already become "How did I ever live without this?" kind of valuable to me.
I haven't noticed any major changes so far since the update. The issues I was having before persist though not as often and they are minor. The Leopard Preview is surprisingly stable unlike someone else's beta OS... no names ::cough::Microsoft::cough::
Parallels Desktop for Mac works fine under Leopard BEFORE installing the recently released Parallels Desktop beta update. If you install the Parallels Desktop beta update, colors in the app buttons/windows are distorted (http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/9683/snapshot20060831231144xj6.jpg) and this Leopard update does not seem to remedy that. Also, as stated above, the build number has changed (http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/978/snapshot20060831230551mc2.jpg).
iChat continues to be buggy during one way video chats and Parallels after the update continues to have its issues (besides the color distortion) but prior to the Parallels update, these issues were not present so Parallels Desktop 1848 seems to be completely compatible with the Leopard preview but not Parallels 1862.
I should also note that fan behavior on my MacBook Pro with the Leopard Developer Preview (10.5) is excellent... immensely better than with Tiger (10.4.7) but that was true even before I installed the Leopard Preview Update 1.0. :D