oldwatery
Apr 19, 02:09 PM
What annoys me even more is that Apple always seems to make these claims that they made such and such first, and that Windows is copying Mac OS.. What annoys me is if you know a bit of the history you'll find that Apple copied Xerox interface, with permission of course, but it's not like they came up with it first..
Now they are making another claim that Samsung is copying..
x2
Everything is just a development of something else.
There is no absolute originality.
This is a stupid waste of time and effort.
But I guess when you get all big and high and mighty then why not throw some of the spare cash at a silly law suit if for no other reason than getting more publicity.
Now they are making another claim that Samsung is copying..
x2
Everything is just a development of something else.
There is no absolute originality.
This is a stupid waste of time and effort.
But I guess when you get all big and high and mighty then why not throw some of the spare cash at a silly law suit if for no other reason than getting more publicity.
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 05:02 PM
We should either stay out of ALL interference, or else put on the damn star-spangled cape and superhero tights and get to business already. Wherever evil is, we must go and fight it! :rolleyes:
That's what it might look like from your shores. Fortunately, the world and life isn't so black and white.
Quite right. So far the whole Libya affair has a lot more in common with Desert Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(December_1998)) than Iraq...
Operationally, perhaps. But politically, more in line with Bosnia, a civil war on Europe's borders involving genocide... with the added complications of Gaddafi's record, set in context of uprisings across the entire region.
It's much easier than actually addressing your real views... it's a defense mechanism which she uses to avoid serious debate.
Chuckle of the evening. Serious debate? You have no idea what debate is, endlessly unthinkingly recycling the same garbage that's so easily shot down from Heritage and other paid shills, thinking Fox News is a news organisation and Newt Gingrich is some kind of debating genius. Newt Gingrich, the idiot-savant, who only two weeks ago was urging the president:
Asked, �what would you do about Libya?� Gingrich responded:
Exercise a no-fly zone this evening. � We don�t need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we�re intervening.
and now is saying:
The Cars 2 is the follow-up to
watched Cars the movie.
The character is an Aston
DISNEY CARS, PIXAR CARS MOVIE
disney pixar cars movie
gt;Product Name: Cars The Movie
on and Cars+2+the+movie+
Cars movie gets permanent site
Lizzie from Disney/Pixar Cars
cars movie characters
The TV tuner shupports UHF and
CARS 2 THE MOVIE CHARACTERS
The Cars Lightyear Launchers
quot;cars the movie characters
CARS 2 THE MOVIE CHARACTERS
Cars Movie Characters
CARS 2 THE MOVIE CHARACTERS
Reacent Post
That's what it might look like from your shores. Fortunately, the world and life isn't so black and white.
Quite right. So far the whole Libya affair has a lot more in common with Desert Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(December_1998)) than Iraq...
Operationally, perhaps. But politically, more in line with Bosnia, a civil war on Europe's borders involving genocide... with the added complications of Gaddafi's record, set in context of uprisings across the entire region.
It's much easier than actually addressing your real views... it's a defense mechanism which she uses to avoid serious debate.
Chuckle of the evening. Serious debate? You have no idea what debate is, endlessly unthinkingly recycling the same garbage that's so easily shot down from Heritage and other paid shills, thinking Fox News is a news organisation and Newt Gingrich is some kind of debating genius. Newt Gingrich, the idiot-savant, who only two weeks ago was urging the president:
Asked, �what would you do about Libya?� Gingrich responded:
Exercise a no-fly zone this evening. � We don�t need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we�re intervening.
and now is saying:
McGarvels
Nov 28, 06:46 PM
I can't wait until Steve laughs in their faces. Who the hell do these guys think they are?
HecubusPro
Sep 19, 09:21 AM
That whole comment had the tone of a spoilt 13 year old...
You have no idea why some ppl are waiting for the next revision or upgrade - don't benchmark your rationale with others in way that dismisses other ppl who have equally legitimate reasons and opinions...
Some ppl (who don't have allot of money to drop every year for the next best thing) have to spend wisely - and perhaps just want a revB machine that is more stable and refined. I for one keep my macs until they die...so I will be waiting for revB to maximise my chances of a solid bug-free machine.
If that makes me spoilt - b/c I don't want to purchase new products year after year - then there is nothing I can do about your perceptions...
AMEN!!!! :D
You have no idea why some ppl are waiting for the next revision or upgrade - don't benchmark your rationale with others in way that dismisses other ppl who have equally legitimate reasons and opinions...
Some ppl (who don't have allot of money to drop every year for the next best thing) have to spend wisely - and perhaps just want a revB machine that is more stable and refined. I for one keep my macs until they die...so I will be waiting for revB to maximise my chances of a solid bug-free machine.
If that makes me spoilt - b/c I don't want to purchase new products year after year - then there is nothing I can do about your perceptions...
AMEN!!!! :D
*LTD*
Apr 10, 09:50 PM
Oh, we are totally getting an iPad app to go along with this program. I can feel it.
Impossible.
The iPad is not a serious computer. This will never happen.
It's just a fad.
Ignore the big-name game titles for iOS. Ignore the upcoming Photoshop app. Ignore the millions of sales. Ignore the copycats in the market.
It'll all go away very soon.
Impossible.
The iPad is not a serious computer. This will never happen.
It's just a fad.
Ignore the big-name game titles for iOS. Ignore the upcoming Photoshop app. Ignore the millions of sales. Ignore the copycats in the market.
It'll all go away very soon.
ChrisA
Aug 7, 06:33 PM
I keep reading stuff like this. I don't think Time Machine works with the reagular harddrive. You have to use it with an external drive.
Depends on what threat you want to protect yourself from. On Tiger the trash can protects against acidental deletes and does a usfull job. Time Machine on one drive would act like a nicer, automated trash can and might even replace the trash can. In fact I don't se a need for the trash anymore.
If a user adds a second drive he still gets the effect of the automatic trash can but now can survie a disk smoking. Wat reains to be seen is how configurable this thing is. Can he backup to a server over the Internet AND to his external drive at the same time. What if you are using a RAID? can you back that up to a second RAID? Who backs up the backup server? What is to prevent a "backup cycle" so where one small change fills up every disk on the network? That would be if "A" backed or "B" and "B" backed up "A". Does the system detect longer cycles?? How?
Depends on what threat you want to protect yourself from. On Tiger the trash can protects against acidental deletes and does a usfull job. Time Machine on one drive would act like a nicer, automated trash can and might even replace the trash can. In fact I don't se a need for the trash anymore.
If a user adds a second drive he still gets the effect of the automatic trash can but now can survie a disk smoking. Wat reains to be seen is how configurable this thing is. Can he backup to a server over the Internet AND to his external drive at the same time. What if you are using a RAID? can you back that up to a second RAID? Who backs up the backup server? What is to prevent a "backup cycle" so where one small change fills up every disk on the network? That would be if "A" backed or "B" and "B" backed up "A". Does the system detect longer cycles?? How?
thogs_cave
Jul 27, 10:11 AM
All of the reviews of the Core 2 Duo say that it crushes AMD in the desktop arena. This is good news
This week, anyhow. This stuff goes back-and-forth like a tennis match.
I don't know if it's a good thing or not, it just is. I prefer AMD on the whole, as I like their design philosophy. But, I'm totally happy with the Intel chip in my MacBook. Whatever works. I find as I get older, the same computers get faster while I just get slower. :D
This week, anyhow. This stuff goes back-and-forth like a tennis match.
I don't know if it's a good thing or not, it just is. I prefer AMD on the whole, as I like their design philosophy. But, I'm totally happy with the Intel chip in my MacBook. Whatever works. I find as I get older, the same computers get faster while I just get slower. :D
dejunky
Apr 6, 02:54 PM
And THAT's why I didn't jump the gun on a MBA yet. Now give me the new processors, and a backlit keyboard, and Apple's got my $.
(Be nice if they could bump up the battery life on the 11 too)
I couldn't have said it better myself!
Although I would change the $ to a � ;-)
(Be nice if they could bump up the battery life on the 11 too)
I couldn't have said it better myself!
Although I would change the $ to a � ;-)
manu chao
Apr 27, 08:56 AM
No they won't. They're not going to delete the DB - they're only storing a week. Did you read the story?
And assume you go to a place you have been a month ago, wouldn't having the database speed things up when you return to that location a month later?
(Though I agree the effect will be very minor, as soon as you land with a plane, the iPhone will start populating that database, thus having the data from a month ago will only be relevant if you need location data right away after landing.)
And assume you go to a place you have been a month ago, wouldn't having the database speed things up when you return to that location a month later?
(Though I agree the effect will be very minor, as soon as you land with a plane, the iPhone will start populating that database, thus having the data from a month ago will only be relevant if you need location data right away after landing.)
JoEw
Mar 31, 08:13 PM
Google wants to do with android, what apple has been doing for the past 4 years with ios. Actually make money!
The only reason google made android open source was to get a lot of money invested in the ecosystem (HTC is basically dependent on android now). I see google charging handset manufacturers like HTC for it's OS in the near future.
Because when all is said and done, Google is a company and like any other company, it's goal is profit.
The only reason google made android open source was to get a lot of money invested in the ecosystem (HTC is basically dependent on android now). I see google charging handset manufacturers like HTC for it's OS in the near future.
Because when all is said and done, Google is a company and like any other company, it's goal is profit.
Dunepilot
Aug 8, 04:03 AM
I'm glad that Leopard will be completely (that's what they say, at least) 64-bit. I'm not sure why it's important to go on about the applications as if they were important to the operating system itself. Increased integration like what was displayed would cause the anti-trust machine to whip into action, if it was Microsoft instead of Apple.
Time Machine is not exactly revolutionary, considering that there were a few 3rd party products available--Rewind comes to mind--that journaled changes and allowed them to be restored. Still, it should stop the various threads "I accidentally deleted..." :)
Hopefully, the features not mentioned will include a better kernel that actually performs well. It would be nice to see operating system benchmarks that don't make me cringe when I look at the Mac OS X results.
Xcode version 3.0 looks good but they still haven't provided many details.
Yeah, my first thought was - oh yeah, that's just like Rewind. However, the poweronsoftware.com website now forwards to http://www.nowsoftware.com/, so maybe Rewind has been bought out by Apple to use as Time Machine. Anyone know any more about this?
Dune
Time Machine is not exactly revolutionary, considering that there were a few 3rd party products available--Rewind comes to mind--that journaled changes and allowed them to be restored. Still, it should stop the various threads "I accidentally deleted..." :)
Hopefully, the features not mentioned will include a better kernel that actually performs well. It would be nice to see operating system benchmarks that don't make me cringe when I look at the Mac OS X results.
Xcode version 3.0 looks good but they still haven't provided many details.
Yeah, my first thought was - oh yeah, that's just like Rewind. However, the poweronsoftware.com website now forwards to http://www.nowsoftware.com/, so maybe Rewind has been bought out by Apple to use as Time Machine. Anyone know any more about this?
Dune
Magrathea
Apr 6, 11:23 PM
Close, but not quite right.
The Mercury Playback Engine is composed of 3 things:
1. 64 Bit Application
2. Multithreaded Application
3. Processing of some things using CUDA (an NVIDIA card)
If you don't have a CUDA based video card, you still have the Mercury Playback Engine (software) available. What you probably meant to say is that hardware acceleration for the Mercury Playback Engine is not available unless it's a CUDA card.
More info: http://blogs.adobe.com/premiereprotraining/2011/02/cuda-mercury-playback-engine-and-adobe-premiere-pro.html
Best,
Kevin
I can attest to mercury working on both my MBPs 2007 and mid 2008 (8gigs of ram) but add a fast color correction effect on AVCHD or 7D footage and you gotta render - machines grind to a halt, footage not playable at all. Transcode to Prores first and you're golden.
Of course most people will get newer quad core machines but laptop wise apple doesn't have a 1Gig CUDA card for any MBP right?
Also, I have seen tests for people with fancy Quattro 4300fx cards ($1500) NS 6 OR 8 core machines where they turn on and off the hardware acceleration and didn't see much of a difference not a 10x better / $1500 difference. Correct me if I'm wrong here.
The Mercury Playback Engine is composed of 3 things:
1. 64 Bit Application
2. Multithreaded Application
3. Processing of some things using CUDA (an NVIDIA card)
If you don't have a CUDA based video card, you still have the Mercury Playback Engine (software) available. What you probably meant to say is that hardware acceleration for the Mercury Playback Engine is not available unless it's a CUDA card.
More info: http://blogs.adobe.com/premiereprotraining/2011/02/cuda-mercury-playback-engine-and-adobe-premiere-pro.html
Best,
Kevin
I can attest to mercury working on both my MBPs 2007 and mid 2008 (8gigs of ram) but add a fast color correction effect on AVCHD or 7D footage and you gotta render - machines grind to a halt, footage not playable at all. Transcode to Prores first and you're golden.
Of course most people will get newer quad core machines but laptop wise apple doesn't have a 1Gig CUDA card for any MBP right?
Also, I have seen tests for people with fancy Quattro 4300fx cards ($1500) NS 6 OR 8 core machines where they turn on and off the hardware acceleration and didn't see much of a difference not a 10x better / $1500 difference. Correct me if I'm wrong here.
Sodner
Apr 8, 07:37 AM
It keeps people coming back day after day.
Yep. And maybe a little... "We don't have the iPad 2 in but let me show you this Xoom we do have in stock." Unknowing Mom or Pop fall for it.
Ta-Da! Manager meets Xoom sell totals and iPad 2's as well.
Yep. And maybe a little... "We don't have the iPad 2 in but let me show you this Xoom we do have in stock." Unknowing Mom or Pop fall for it.
Ta-Da! Manager meets Xoom sell totals and iPad 2's as well.
Drew n macs
Apr 7, 10:33 PM
Something did seem fishy. I would suspect BB was pushing models that are not as popular first and once there sold push the more desirable ones. With that said though I have no Idea which Ipads would be more desirable than another. I would think they would want to push the 64gb model$ but it seems like several people on MR consider that model desirable. Just an observation.
mattsh
Sep 19, 06:24 AM
to be honest - i've been looking at the lenovo offerings and i'm attracted. i have been a diehard apple fan my entire life, but if all it means is i have to use tiger clone (aka vista) but at least have hardware that is current with technology i'll buy.
so yes, apple has a monopoly, but they can't be to jack ass about it because people will start to go other places no matter how good ilife is.
there is no excuse that one of the top 5 notebook venders in the united states on intel architecture is behind this much its competitors.
You know I've been thinking about this. Does Apple really NEED to update now? I mean what's the purpose of the update? Yes there is 64bit, but other then that? Not much. A LITTLE more speed, but OSX already runs pretty fast... faster then Windows would with comparible hardware. OSX already does more then Windows does and does it better. Maybe Apple doesn't NEED To stay up with the latest processor fad because they are already better then the competition.. maybe the competition NEEDS faster hardward because they OS is so bloated it runs slowly unless they have it. Ever think of that? Honestly, I'm 100% happy with my current MB which does not have the new processor in it. I launch most programs in under a second.:D
so yes, apple has a monopoly, but they can't be to jack ass about it because people will start to go other places no matter how good ilife is.
there is no excuse that one of the top 5 notebook venders in the united states on intel architecture is behind this much its competitors.
You know I've been thinking about this. Does Apple really NEED to update now? I mean what's the purpose of the update? Yes there is 64bit, but other then that? Not much. A LITTLE more speed, but OSX already runs pretty fast... faster then Windows would with comparible hardware. OSX already does more then Windows does and does it better. Maybe Apple doesn't NEED To stay up with the latest processor fad because they are already better then the competition.. maybe the competition NEEDS faster hardward because they OS is so bloated it runs slowly unless they have it. Ever think of that? Honestly, I'm 100% happy with my current MB which does not have the new processor in it. I launch most programs in under a second.:D
whatever
Nov 29, 12:42 PM
I'm certainly not on the record label's side on this, and I'm someone who almost never downloads anything online (not even free, MP3 of the week type tracks), but I think two important things we're glossing over are:
1 It is illegal to pirate music, regardless of whether or not a label gives their artists their fair share of profits.
2 Like it or not, most of the music on most people's portable music players is downloaded off of P2P. We "affluent" Mac users, who stay on the cutting edge of technology and come to places like MacRumors for heated exchanges about Apple news are not a typical cross section of music consumers.
I'd reckon most iPods are owned by the under 21 crowd, who've grown up with P2P as an ever-present option for music, and who swap songs with friends without thinking twice about it.
And as this generation gets older, things will only get worse for the labels, I figure.
On the other hand, at some point in time, this same generation will be in our courtrooms running the judicial system and in our capitol running our government, so it could be that some of these antiquated laws get modified for the digital age, but until then, refer back to Points 1 and 2 above and realize that despite how we may feel about the issue, it's illegal to download music freely and most people are doing it...
For starters, it's not illegal to download music freely. There are quite a few artists that allow free downloads of their music, so the first part of your statement "it's illegal to download music freely" is not correct. The second half of your statement ".... people are doing it....", assumes that everyone is guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Which is wrong.
I've been re-thinking my stance here. And if Apple decides to give a portion of their future iPod revenue to the music industry, then let them. I personally would never do it, but again, we're only talking a couple of dollars per iPod. Would Apple raise their prices on current models, most likely not. I would rather have Apple pay the iPod tax, instead of changing the iTunes Music Store's pricing model.
1 It is illegal to pirate music, regardless of whether or not a label gives their artists their fair share of profits.
2 Like it or not, most of the music on most people's portable music players is downloaded off of P2P. We "affluent" Mac users, who stay on the cutting edge of technology and come to places like MacRumors for heated exchanges about Apple news are not a typical cross section of music consumers.
I'd reckon most iPods are owned by the under 21 crowd, who've grown up with P2P as an ever-present option for music, and who swap songs with friends without thinking twice about it.
And as this generation gets older, things will only get worse for the labels, I figure.
On the other hand, at some point in time, this same generation will be in our courtrooms running the judicial system and in our capitol running our government, so it could be that some of these antiquated laws get modified for the digital age, but until then, refer back to Points 1 and 2 above and realize that despite how we may feel about the issue, it's illegal to download music freely and most people are doing it...
For starters, it's not illegal to download music freely. There are quite a few artists that allow free downloads of their music, so the first part of your statement "it's illegal to download music freely" is not correct. The second half of your statement ".... people are doing it....", assumes that everyone is guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Which is wrong.
I've been re-thinking my stance here. And if Apple decides to give a portion of their future iPod revenue to the music industry, then let them. I personally would never do it, but again, we're only talking a couple of dollars per iPod. Would Apple raise their prices on current models, most likely not. I would rather have Apple pay the iPod tax, instead of changing the iTunes Music Store's pricing model.
Kane.Elson
Jul 28, 03:57 AM
You might want to make that til Tuesday September 12 when the Paris Apple Expo opens with an Apple keynote.
Yeah, I meant around that time. I'm not going to order it on midnight august 31st :P
It's just painfull thinking about all the goodies coming out soon.
Yeah, I meant around that time. I'm not going to order it on midnight august 31st :P
It's just painfull thinking about all the goodies coming out soon.
CaoCao
Feb 28, 06:47 PM
Wow. I have never, ever in my life been so tempted to troll a MacRumors thread, nor have I ever been so infuriated by the use of a set of double quotation marks.
Gay marriage is not "marriage." Gay marriage is marriage.
Gay people are not "gay." They are gay.
So a few things:
1) Deal with it.
2) Gays are going to keep on getting married. Whether that means that they have to leave your ass-backwards country to come to a real civilization to do so, or write their own damn marriage contract and hire a rational person to perform the ceremony, they will.
3) As Lee said, what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes (hell, anywhere, in fact) is their own damn business.
4) The claim by Bill McEnaney that gay people living together "should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another" is outrageous. (NB that this person had just said they must live "as siblings" which is weird, given that platonic love is only reservation from physical romance, not emotional romance...)
5) If you are going to pull the "protect the sanctity of marriage" card on me, think very hard about the institutions of divorce and annulment.
6) Many people (and many of the small number who claim to anyway) do not share your beliefs. Catholics have sex. In and out of marriage. *See Point One.*
7) Please try to be just a smidgen more cultured in your attitudes, and a little less abrasive in sharing them. Though I try to reserve judgment, I am currently not alone in thinking that you are completely insane just by your posts in this thread.
I feel better now. :)
2) okay, they can pretend to get married
3) We don't care what they are doing in there
5) Divorce is a terrible and tragic thing
6) The Catholic Church doesn't pretend that the people in it are perfect.
A) Maybe your feelings on the situation would be different if you actually had a girlfriend.
B) I'm interested to learn what exactly the physical and psychological risks of non-marital sex are?
You're kidding. Right?
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornication
You can pretend that particular fornication sessions are sacred because some guy wearing a white collar said so.
Definitions are useful
No, it's called "living a human lifestyle".
Why should your hang-ups be of any relevance to anybody else? Perhaps you need to deal with your own perceptions instead of relying on some dusty tome to tell you what to think. You know that Plato was a repressed homosexual, don't you? He spent hours at the gymnasium ogling naked young men, and perhaps like S/Paul, spent a lot of effort telling other people how to love to expiate his guilty feelings.
You are extraordinarily keen to prescribe what other people should do. What's it got to do with you?
You sound like a real catch, but hey, what you choose to do is up to you.
So, you assert that a married non-Christian couple can do nothing but fornicate? What an appallingly demeaning attitude! Do you regard any couple you meet as probable fornicators by default? Do you question them about whether they use birth control, or whether they were married, and if so whether it was in a Catholic church with the proper sacraments? You clearly swallow Catholic dogma hook, line and sinker, so choosing righteous friends must be a real PITA.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?
That is because to a Christian they aren't married. He probably doesn't because a marriage between two non-Catholic Christians is generally valid.
Lee, I agree with you about what you say, but he clearly did say that this was only his opinion. People are allowed that, even if it is hateful and exclusionist.
inclusivism is not inherently good and that position holds no hatred or malice
They decided not to rehire him, so?
Gay marriage is not "marriage." Gay marriage is marriage.
Gay people are not "gay." They are gay.
So a few things:
1) Deal with it.
2) Gays are going to keep on getting married. Whether that means that they have to leave your ass-backwards country to come to a real civilization to do so, or write their own damn marriage contract and hire a rational person to perform the ceremony, they will.
3) As Lee said, what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes (hell, anywhere, in fact) is their own damn business.
4) The claim by Bill McEnaney that gay people living together "should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another" is outrageous. (NB that this person had just said they must live "as siblings" which is weird, given that platonic love is only reservation from physical romance, not emotional romance...)
5) If you are going to pull the "protect the sanctity of marriage" card on me, think very hard about the institutions of divorce and annulment.
6) Many people (and many of the small number who claim to anyway) do not share your beliefs. Catholics have sex. In and out of marriage. *See Point One.*
7) Please try to be just a smidgen more cultured in your attitudes, and a little less abrasive in sharing them. Though I try to reserve judgment, I am currently not alone in thinking that you are completely insane just by your posts in this thread.
I feel better now. :)
2) okay, they can pretend to get married
3) We don't care what they are doing in there
5) Divorce is a terrible and tragic thing
6) The Catholic Church doesn't pretend that the people in it are perfect.
A) Maybe your feelings on the situation would be different if you actually had a girlfriend.
B) I'm interested to learn what exactly the physical and psychological risks of non-marital sex are?
You're kidding. Right?
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornication
You can pretend that particular fornication sessions are sacred because some guy wearing a white collar said so.
Definitions are useful
No, it's called "living a human lifestyle".
Why should your hang-ups be of any relevance to anybody else? Perhaps you need to deal with your own perceptions instead of relying on some dusty tome to tell you what to think. You know that Plato was a repressed homosexual, don't you? He spent hours at the gymnasium ogling naked young men, and perhaps like S/Paul, spent a lot of effort telling other people how to love to expiate his guilty feelings.
You are extraordinarily keen to prescribe what other people should do. What's it got to do with you?
You sound like a real catch, but hey, what you choose to do is up to you.
So, you assert that a married non-Christian couple can do nothing but fornicate? What an appallingly demeaning attitude! Do you regard any couple you meet as probable fornicators by default? Do you question them about whether they use birth control, or whether they were married, and if so whether it was in a Catholic church with the proper sacraments? You clearly swallow Catholic dogma hook, line and sinker, so choosing righteous friends must be a real PITA.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?
That is because to a Christian they aren't married. He probably doesn't because a marriage between two non-Catholic Christians is generally valid.
Lee, I agree with you about what you say, but he clearly did say that this was only his opinion. People are allowed that, even if it is hateful and exclusionist.
inclusivism is not inherently good and that position holds no hatred or malice
They decided not to rehire him, so?
SevenInchScrew
Dec 9, 01:09 AM
DoFoT:
It depends on what you want from a game. If you care more about driving and tuning than painting and whatnot go buy GT5. Its all about driving and not much else.
I love it because i'm a bit of a car nerd. If you like cars you will like GT5. If you love cars you will love GT5, its just that simple.
I guess I'll throw in my counterpoint to that then, just to give him another opinion to mull over, because I love cars and don't love GT5....
The game is not real good. Every time I've played it, I can't help but think of how it could have been SOOO much better, if they just trimmed back on the crazy feature list a bit. The game tries to be everything to everyone who likes cars. But the problem with that is, trying to do many things means you'll never excel at any of them. Often the implementation of things in this game is a little weak or unfulfilling because of that. For example...
NASCAR is in, but is pretty plain and boring, and doesn't feel like a real cup race. If you like NASCAR, you'd be better served with a full game based on that.
Same with WRC stuff. Yes, the rally is pretty decent. But, I've played a bunch of REALLY awesome rally games before, and this is nowhere near as good.
Day and Night cycles, and Weather effects look amazing.... on the very few tracks that you can actually have them function on.
The sounds of the cars, just as with every GT game that has come before it, is terrible. Very few cars actually sound like their real-world version, and when you tune them up, they get even less distinctive.
The car list, while huge, is FILLED with cars that I have absolutely no desire to drive in a racing game. I get Kaz's intention, bringing in cars from many eras and different parts of the automotive spectrum to see them, and maybe appreciate them more. But this is a racing game at its core, and I don't ever want to race a VW Kombi.
And lastly, the menus are just pitiful. It really feels like they designed them first, all those years ago, and then never touched them again. So many games have come and gone with great menu systems, and this game took nothing away from them, because they are just awful in this game.
This game really had the potential to be amazing. If they got rid of NASCAR, WRC, Karts, etc, and took out about 4-500 of the boring, crappy cars, we'd be getting somewhere. Use the time and effort that those removed things would have occupied to make some manageable menus, more Premium cars, and get the Day-Night cycle and Weather on all tracks. That would have been great. But that isn't what we got.
Don't get me wrong, it is a good game. But GT games aren't supposed to just be good, they are supposed to be GREAT. But even after a 6 year wait, we only got pretty good.
But hey, as I've said on many occasions, it does make some DAMN GOOD screenshots. Almost unreal at times...
Click to HUGE-size
http://imgur.com/hLJ12.jpg
http://imgur.com/V06hb.jpg
http://imgur.com/Vciun.jpg
http://imgur.com/ZGPiF.jpg
http://imgur.com/IMrhk.jpg
It depends on what you want from a game. If you care more about driving and tuning than painting and whatnot go buy GT5. Its all about driving and not much else.
I love it because i'm a bit of a car nerd. If you like cars you will like GT5. If you love cars you will love GT5, its just that simple.
I guess I'll throw in my counterpoint to that then, just to give him another opinion to mull over, because I love cars and don't love GT5....
The game is not real good. Every time I've played it, I can't help but think of how it could have been SOOO much better, if they just trimmed back on the crazy feature list a bit. The game tries to be everything to everyone who likes cars. But the problem with that is, trying to do many things means you'll never excel at any of them. Often the implementation of things in this game is a little weak or unfulfilling because of that. For example...
NASCAR is in, but is pretty plain and boring, and doesn't feel like a real cup race. If you like NASCAR, you'd be better served with a full game based on that.
Same with WRC stuff. Yes, the rally is pretty decent. But, I've played a bunch of REALLY awesome rally games before, and this is nowhere near as good.
Day and Night cycles, and Weather effects look amazing.... on the very few tracks that you can actually have them function on.
The sounds of the cars, just as with every GT game that has come before it, is terrible. Very few cars actually sound like their real-world version, and when you tune them up, they get even less distinctive.
The car list, while huge, is FILLED with cars that I have absolutely no desire to drive in a racing game. I get Kaz's intention, bringing in cars from many eras and different parts of the automotive spectrum to see them, and maybe appreciate them more. But this is a racing game at its core, and I don't ever want to race a VW Kombi.
And lastly, the menus are just pitiful. It really feels like they designed them first, all those years ago, and then never touched them again. So many games have come and gone with great menu systems, and this game took nothing away from them, because they are just awful in this game.
This game really had the potential to be amazing. If they got rid of NASCAR, WRC, Karts, etc, and took out about 4-500 of the boring, crappy cars, we'd be getting somewhere. Use the time and effort that those removed things would have occupied to make some manageable menus, more Premium cars, and get the Day-Night cycle and Weather on all tracks. That would have been great. But that isn't what we got.
Don't get me wrong, it is a good game. But GT games aren't supposed to just be good, they are supposed to be GREAT. But even after a 6 year wait, we only got pretty good.
But hey, as I've said on many occasions, it does make some DAMN GOOD screenshots. Almost unreal at times...
Click to HUGE-size
http://imgur.com/hLJ12.jpg
http://imgur.com/V06hb.jpg
http://imgur.com/Vciun.jpg
http://imgur.com/ZGPiF.jpg
http://imgur.com/IMrhk.jpg
OSXconvert
Aug 17, 03:32 PM
It will be exactly 25% faster in UB photoshop. How do I know? I tested in photoshop 7.01 in OS X and in XP on the mac pro. XP test was 25% faster. There you go.
Macenforcer, that's a good estimate based on PS7, but we have no idea how much Adobe will optimize the code in CS3.
The thing that makes the Mac vs PC battle so interesting now is that the hardware is essentially the same. So the differences will come down to the hardware drivers and the software and OS optimizations. Though I'd love to see Adobe preferentially optimize the UB code for CS3, I doubt they will financially risk it being much better than Windows. As much as I love the OSX interface better than Windows, I suspect that the deeper pockets of Microsoft will be able to ensure that Vista and CS3 remain neck and neck competitive if not superior in pure performance to Leopard and CS3. Before, when Apple had Motorola's and IBM's chips, things like vector processing speed shone on the Mac, but now the playing field is totally level.
Though it was a smart move to increase marketshare when Apple switched to Intel, it may actually hurt the high-end pro market because all pro machines will be running on the best Intel processors. Choosing, say AMD, over Intel might have been a wiser choice: Apple would have gotten PC compatibility with the possibility of increased performance or Mac customization which would have made the pro machines really scream compared to Windows.
From now on, whatever processor Apple has, Windows has, and the differences will come down mostly on the OS. I do have to tip my hat to Apple for developing BootCamp, because now we as Apple users get the best of both worlds.
Macenforcer, that's a good estimate based on PS7, but we have no idea how much Adobe will optimize the code in CS3.
The thing that makes the Mac vs PC battle so interesting now is that the hardware is essentially the same. So the differences will come down to the hardware drivers and the software and OS optimizations. Though I'd love to see Adobe preferentially optimize the UB code for CS3, I doubt they will financially risk it being much better than Windows. As much as I love the OSX interface better than Windows, I suspect that the deeper pockets of Microsoft will be able to ensure that Vista and CS3 remain neck and neck competitive if not superior in pure performance to Leopard and CS3. Before, when Apple had Motorola's and IBM's chips, things like vector processing speed shone on the Mac, but now the playing field is totally level.
Though it was a smart move to increase marketshare when Apple switched to Intel, it may actually hurt the high-end pro market because all pro machines will be running on the best Intel processors. Choosing, say AMD, over Intel might have been a wiser choice: Apple would have gotten PC compatibility with the possibility of increased performance or Mac customization which would have made the pro machines really scream compared to Windows.
From now on, whatever processor Apple has, Windows has, and the differences will come down mostly on the OS. I do have to tip my hat to Apple for developing BootCamp, because now we as Apple users get the best of both worlds.
Porco
Aug 5, 08:15 PM
Don't like it. I don't want a new keyboard - I just want FR. Besides, anyone with an older laptop would not be served by that. Just put a USB dongle in the case and sell it with the software!
I'd like a USB dongle too ideally, but I was responding to the specific Mac Pro /IR+FR issue really. I think the problem (from their perspective, and so for the likelihood of it happening) with Apple also doing a dongle would it could eat into the [presumably more profitable] IR keyboard sales.
A keyboard could still be used on any USB laptop, and if you were hooking it up to a TV or large monitor you wouldn't need the lid open - which would also mean the laptop's integrated keyboard would be inaccessible, if you did want to use it for any reason while hooked up to an external screen.
They might just do a dongle on a USB cable, but that doesn't seem very Apple to me.
I'd like a USB dongle too ideally, but I was responding to the specific Mac Pro /IR+FR issue really. I think the problem (from their perspective, and so for the likelihood of it happening) with Apple also doing a dongle would it could eat into the [presumably more profitable] IR keyboard sales.
A keyboard could still be used on any USB laptop, and if you were hooking it up to a TV or large monitor you wouldn't need the lid open - which would also mean the laptop's integrated keyboard would be inaccessible, if you did want to use it for any reason while hooked up to an external screen.
They might just do a dongle on a USB cable, but that doesn't seem very Apple to me.
amin
Aug 18, 10:28 PM
Obviously, inherently the iMac design is inferior to the Mac Pro/Powermac.
It may be obvious, but based on your earlier statement that a Conroe iMac would be "able to crunch through" apps faster than a Mac Pro, the obvious seemed worth identifying.
But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
*snip*
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.
And how does it fare in memory latency?
*snip*
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))
I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
It may be obvious, but based on your earlier statement that a Conroe iMac would be "able to crunch through" apps faster than a Mac Pro, the obvious seemed worth identifying.
But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
*snip*
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.
And how does it fare in memory latency?
*snip*
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))
I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
boncellis
Aug 27, 09:12 PM
Sifting through this thread can make one either optimistic or irrational, depending on who you ask. One point I found absent among the discussion was the possibility of a Core 2 Duo machine coinciding with the September 16th iPod offer end date.
Makes sense to me, but then I tend to get shouted down a lot in this forum. ;)
Makes sense to me, but then I tend to get shouted down a lot in this forum. ;)
citizenzen
Mar 23, 03:03 PM
"Lying" implies intent. Are you accusing them of lying, or getting it wrong?
OMG. They definitely lied.
Just like Clinton.
They looked right into the camera and lied to the world.
Only their lies had more at stake than some blowjobs.
OMG. They definitely lied.
Just like Clinton.
They looked right into the camera and lied to the world.
Only their lies had more at stake than some blowjobs.
0 comments:
Post a Comment