UWF404
Jul 7, 09:51 PM
My very first call dropped and when I grip the phone as one would naturally hold the phone I lose 3 bars. The phone looks cooler than the older 3GS. However, the sharper edges make it uncomfortable to hold compared to old phone. The supposed upgraded screen seems to me only marginally better. That said, who here who has a 3GS ever said "geez, if only the screen was better" :rolleyes:
The glass on both sides to me is just down right stupid. Just because you it looks cooler does not mean it's functionally better. It only makes the phone more delicate and prone to damage. This phone is a case study of design not in sync with engineering.This phone feels delicate and no as sturdy like the 3GS. All in all I'd give it a thumbs down and I'm baffled at Apple for putting out this phone.
The glass on both sides to me is just down right stupid. Just because you it looks cooler does not mean it's functionally better. It only makes the phone more delicate and prone to damage. This phone is a case study of design not in sync with engineering.This phone feels delicate and no as sturdy like the 3GS. All in all I'd give it a thumbs down and I'm baffled at Apple for putting out this phone.
Ino
Sep 20, 01:57 AM
It sounds like it will not have HDMI or TiVo features, and it will play movies out of iTunes, which screams to me that it will only play .mp4 and .m4v files much like my 5G iPod.
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/4561/picture1jq2.png
But it sure looks better than it sounds...;)
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/4561/picture1jq2.png
But it sure looks better than it sounds...;)
Full of Win
Apr 13, 03:26 AM
seems back in 2007 they bought into 2000 CS5 licences
Did they, the BBC, have a time machine? In CS3/CS4 was the Adobe offerings.
Did they, the BBC, have a time machine? In CS3/CS4 was the Adobe offerings.
portishead
Apr 12, 10:50 PM
HAHAHA One-click CC. you are funny or... well you know what.
Yeah, I don't know about one click CC either. Color me skeptical. Although a lot of color adjustments are just minor, so theoretically, it could do a decent job.
Anyone doing complicated color work is going to need a dedicated app anyway. I don't think it's realistic to assume FCPX will ever be able to do this.
Yeah, I don't know about one click CC either. Color me skeptical. Although a lot of color adjustments are just minor, so theoretically, it could do a decent job.
Anyone doing complicated color work is going to need a dedicated app anyway. I don't think it's realistic to assume FCPX will ever be able to do this.
DeathChill
Apr 20, 09:18 PM
I don't. I just don't have OS/X. I just assumed that OS/X might not have it since some OS/X users here were confused about Windows hiding system files. :)
So wait, you don't own a Mac or an iDevice but you post here constantly?
So wait, you don't own a Mac or an iDevice but you post here constantly?
emotion
Sep 21, 11:25 AM
The Quadro in the WMCE really puts up a superb 1080p picture - not sure that I'd want to compress the signal and send it over wireless...
Technically you're not compressing the signal. Just the file (which will be cached if the network can't cope). The signal is produced locally.
Technically you're not compressing the signal. Just the file (which will be cached if the network can't cope). The signal is produced locally.
Daveoc64
Apr 15, 11:51 AM
You know, it's pretty easy to see why some are tempted to just dig in and declare you to be an enemy to be fought at any price - after they extend an olive branch and people like you still come back accusing hate.
I'm just saying that it's very simple:
Someone who tells you, in the face of scientific evidence, that they believe who you are is wrong and that you should change can only be described as being hateful.
Their intentions are irrelevant if they're telling you something that is proven to be harmful.
I'm just saying that it's very simple:
Someone who tells you, in the face of scientific evidence, that they believe who you are is wrong and that you should change can only be described as being hateful.
Their intentions are irrelevant if they're telling you something that is proven to be harmful.
paulypants
Mar 18, 02:27 PM
Oh! There goes the email from Gorog to the Music Labels!
Lord Blackadder
Mar 14, 03:11 PM
Then, "burn cleanly" is a dubious concept. Even if you can clean it up, how much does that cost, how much energy dies it take to clean it up, and how much do you lose from the coal's potential energy? Industry touts clean coal, others claim the very concept is a myth, I am not sure who is closer to the practical reality of the situation.
"Clean coal" is 100% myth, marketing-speak invented by coal companies to fool people. At best, we can have "less dirty coal". Scrubbers, filters, and other "clean coal" technology reduce pollution but also efficiency, so the cost of the equipment is not the only tradeoff. The only truly "clean coal" is the stuf you don't burn.
With that being said, it is incumbent on us to use the lowest-polluting process for burning coal that is practicable, so "clean coal" technology is important in that sense. But the notion that we can some how burn coal "cleanly" is false.
"Clean coal" is 100% myth, marketing-speak invented by coal companies to fool people. At best, we can have "less dirty coal". Scrubbers, filters, and other "clean coal" technology reduce pollution but also efficiency, so the cost of the equipment is not the only tradeoff. The only truly "clean coal" is the stuf you don't burn.
With that being said, it is incumbent on us to use the lowest-polluting process for burning coal that is practicable, so "clean coal" technology is important in that sense. But the notion that we can some how burn coal "cleanly" is false.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 08:48 AM
The tangible item is the smartphone hardware itself. Thats like saying the battle between Sony and Samsung LCD tv's, isnt exactly about tv's... its about Google TV(Sony) vs Samsung Smart TV.
Then why don't they show studies that compare Samsung versus LG versus Motorola smart phone hardware sales? Why are they constantly talking about the "Android" share?
Then why don't they show studies that compare Samsung versus LG versus Motorola smart phone hardware sales? Why are they constantly talking about the "Android" share?
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:03 PM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
HecubusPro
Sep 12, 06:38 PM
Anyone got a screenshot from the keynote?
What do you mean? That's a picture from the keynote this morning posted by one of the Gizmodo guys who was there.
What do you mean? That's a picture from the keynote this morning posted by one of the Gizmodo guys who was there.
superleccy
Sep 20, 06:24 AM
I was hoping that's the purpose of the USB port. I know many are thinking it's for the iPod, but I'm hoping you can plug a tuner in :)
edit: in addition to the plug-in tuner, I hope it streams backwards to the computer harddrive.
I was thinking the EyeTV would plug into the USB port on the Mac (as it does today), but the iTV will let you watch it and control it from your living room.
But actually, I am starting to see your (and dobbin's) point. In some ways it might be more convenient if the EyeTV actually plugged into the iTV, and gave you the option of streaming back to you Mac... at least then your EyeTV Tuner would be near where your Sat/Cable/Ariel socket is. But now it's starting to sound expensive and more like a Mac Mini...
SL
edit: in addition to the plug-in tuner, I hope it streams backwards to the computer harddrive.
I was thinking the EyeTV would plug into the USB port on the Mac (as it does today), but the iTV will let you watch it and control it from your living room.
But actually, I am starting to see your (and dobbin's) point. In some ways it might be more convenient if the EyeTV actually plugged into the iTV, and gave you the option of streaming back to you Mac... at least then your EyeTV Tuner would be near where your Sat/Cable/Ariel socket is. But now it's starting to sound expensive and more like a Mac Mini...
SL
Don't panic
Mar 14, 10:29 PM
authorities just expanded evacuation steps, reflecting worsening situations/new leaks
arkitect
Apr 15, 10:55 AM
BEST. POST. EVER.
So you are OK with the whole Ex-Gay thing?
And before you become over-wrought again, I am just reading what you wrote in reply to WestonHarvey1's post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12397392&postcount=126)… where he says he suspects you might be sympathetic to the ex-gay "cause". A post which you then labelled Best. Post. Ever.
So you are OK with the whole Ex-Gay thing?
And before you become over-wrought again, I am just reading what you wrote in reply to WestonHarvey1's post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12397392&postcount=126)… where he says he suspects you might be sympathetic to the ex-gay "cause". A post which you then labelled Best. Post. Ever.
BuddyTronic
Jan 23, 01:30 AM
I tried installing the android sdk, it is the usual linux crapfest of having to fix and tweak everything. After 1 hour I still could not get it working. Absolutely appalling, makes me wonder about google. Aapl wants max lockdown on all their **** but at least it works.
mixel
Apr 10, 10:36 AM
Except . . . it is.
The REAL story here isn't whether mobile gaming - the likes of which we see *currently* and the likes of which we will see in the *near future* (this is just the tip of the iceberg) will be a major force in gaming (it already is) but rather, that "hardcore gamers" feel so threatened by this.
No they don't, they don't see it as a legitimate threat because it has very little industry support. Hardcore gamers would probably welcome a new serious player in the market. Bring it on Apple.. Many of us want buttons but there are good uses for touch screens too. People were the same before Sony AND MS entered the market.. Largely dismissive.
I would be worried if touch was going to "supercede" buttons/sticks/etc, but that is seriously never going to happen. tactile controls are actually more intuitive than remappable non-buttons that work differently for every title.
And here's an even deeper fear of theirs, buried in the subtext: that in time, console gaming will shift to a touch-based tablet paradigm - possibly not in terms a complete replacement for consoles, but in terms of the way developers (and big-name developers) shift their attention to mobile gaming at the expense of consoles, in order to enjoy possibly far greater profits thanks to a much larger audience. After all, consoles are severely limited in their current state. Gaming and maybe Blu Ray playback. Mobile devices, however, offer a galaxy of possibilities - soon to be indispensable tools for nearly everyone.
I don't think anyone's seriously worried about that. It would be a bad thing but i'd not call it threatening. How will they make much larger profits in a market where everything's competing to charge minute amounts? You realise how much money is in the games industry as it is? They've had long enough to start to "shift their attention to mobile gaming at the expense of consoles" - Why isn't there any sign that this is actually happening? At all? Show us the games.. I want them. XD
Imagine big-name, premier titles appearing on mobile devices first before being ported over to that box you hook up to the TV with the big-button controller that RROD'd just last month?
It's really amusing.
Welcome, gamers.
Seriously.
You seem to have no idea how game development works. They aren't going to be building for mobile devices then scaling up to much more powerful home consoles at any point in the foreseeable future.. It would make absolutely NO sense.
There's space in the market for multiple players and various control schemes. :)
Kinect being the fastest selling consumer electronic device in history tells you a lot about the legitimacy of the non-Apple gaming market. And the crazy sales of the Wii, DS etc. Even the PSP is selling in massive amounts in Japan still. The crazy Apple-centric perspective of so many people here is frustrating. There is more stuff going on in technology than what Apple dictates.
The REAL story here isn't whether mobile gaming - the likes of which we see *currently* and the likes of which we will see in the *near future* (this is just the tip of the iceberg) will be a major force in gaming (it already is) but rather, that "hardcore gamers" feel so threatened by this.
No they don't, they don't see it as a legitimate threat because it has very little industry support. Hardcore gamers would probably welcome a new serious player in the market. Bring it on Apple.. Many of us want buttons but there are good uses for touch screens too. People were the same before Sony AND MS entered the market.. Largely dismissive.
I would be worried if touch was going to "supercede" buttons/sticks/etc, but that is seriously never going to happen. tactile controls are actually more intuitive than remappable non-buttons that work differently for every title.
And here's an even deeper fear of theirs, buried in the subtext: that in time, console gaming will shift to a touch-based tablet paradigm - possibly not in terms a complete replacement for consoles, but in terms of the way developers (and big-name developers) shift their attention to mobile gaming at the expense of consoles, in order to enjoy possibly far greater profits thanks to a much larger audience. After all, consoles are severely limited in their current state. Gaming and maybe Blu Ray playback. Mobile devices, however, offer a galaxy of possibilities - soon to be indispensable tools for nearly everyone.
I don't think anyone's seriously worried about that. It would be a bad thing but i'd not call it threatening. How will they make much larger profits in a market where everything's competing to charge minute amounts? You realise how much money is in the games industry as it is? They've had long enough to start to "shift their attention to mobile gaming at the expense of consoles" - Why isn't there any sign that this is actually happening? At all? Show us the games.. I want them. XD
Imagine big-name, premier titles appearing on mobile devices first before being ported over to that box you hook up to the TV with the big-button controller that RROD'd just last month?
It's really amusing.
Welcome, gamers.
Seriously.
You seem to have no idea how game development works. They aren't going to be building for mobile devices then scaling up to much more powerful home consoles at any point in the foreseeable future.. It would make absolutely NO sense.
There's space in the market for multiple players and various control schemes. :)
Kinect being the fastest selling consumer electronic device in history tells you a lot about the legitimacy of the non-Apple gaming market. And the crazy sales of the Wii, DS etc. Even the PSP is selling in massive amounts in Japan still. The crazy Apple-centric perspective of so many people here is frustrating. There is more stuff going on in technology than what Apple dictates.
gugy
Sep 21, 01:47 PM
Jeez, and that's a good thing??!
You bet it is.;)
You bet it is.;)
BRLawyer
May 2, 01:52 PM
So let me get this straight:
1 - I must search for something on the Internet that leads me to that link (probably suspicious already);
2 - Javascript, IF activated, will start downloading a file, even though such a process can be stopped in the Safari downloads window;
3 - The suspicious ZIP file MUST be opened, this happening automatically ONLY if the "safe files" option is activated;
4 - I must OPEN the unzipped suspicious file, which will then lead me to a suspicious installer;
5 - I must AUTHORIZE the computer to install the suspicious file by providing my password;
6 - EVEN after doing all that, I can just kill processes and delete the file so that all is fine again.
And people still wanna call that "virus" or "malware"? Gimme an effing break! I've got a lot more damage from script kiddies who once sent me a disguised terminal command as a PDF file.
This is a non-issue...Winblows fanboys, can't you come with something better than this? :cool:
1 - I must search for something on the Internet that leads me to that link (probably suspicious already);
2 - Javascript, IF activated, will start downloading a file, even though such a process can be stopped in the Safari downloads window;
3 - The suspicious ZIP file MUST be opened, this happening automatically ONLY if the "safe files" option is activated;
4 - I must OPEN the unzipped suspicious file, which will then lead me to a suspicious installer;
5 - I must AUTHORIZE the computer to install the suspicious file by providing my password;
6 - EVEN after doing all that, I can just kill processes and delete the file so that all is fine again.
And people still wanna call that "virus" or "malware"? Gimme an effing break! I've got a lot more damage from script kiddies who once sent me a disguised terminal command as a PDF file.
This is a non-issue...Winblows fanboys, can't you come with something better than this? :cool:
nagromme
Apr 15, 09:43 AM
Great program! These are really well done; worth seeing for just about anyone, not just kids thinking of harming themselves.
In fact, speaking as a straight kid who was bullied, the advice and commentary here DOES apply to me, and would have been encouraging, even if this particular program is in response to a cluster of LGBT suicides. (And a program like this, specific to LGBT kids, certainly is called for: they face many of the same challenges anyone else does, but they do face unique challenges too, for sure. Other programs have addressed bullying in general, which is great as well.)
In fact, speaking as a straight kid who was bullied, the advice and commentary here DOES apply to me, and would have been encouraging, even if this particular program is in response to a cluster of LGBT suicides. (And a program like this, specific to LGBT kids, certainly is called for: they face many of the same challenges anyone else does, but they do face unique challenges too, for sure. Other programs have addressed bullying in general, which is great as well.)
reden
Aug 30, 09:35 AM
I was looking through Apple's enviromental contributions about 3 weeks ago and there was nothing that I didn't like. I think Apple is really putting good efforts to help the enviroment. It's very tough to create a self-sustained company and recuding their footprint on this world as a computer company.
Also, what these enviroment companies fail to realize is that Apple computers are different. People keep these computers for longer periods of time, they almost become novelty items. When the hell have you heard someone post a DELL LISA on EBAY? You know how people recycle their Macs for the most part? They pass them on to someone, schools, their local YMCA because it's always a useful piece of equipment that lasts for a good amount of time. They also reduce their footprint by not breaking down as much as their PC counter parts.
Of all the Macs I've owned in the past 10 years, I've NEVER had to take my Mac to get it fixed such as a replaced motherboard or anything like that. Macs last longer, they are useful for longer periods of time, etc. LEARN TO EVALUATE THAT GREENwhatever. I've owned a G4, an iMac, a pizza-box powerpc, and I know where all these computers are located, and they still function. I know they're not in some dump.
Also, what these enviroment companies fail to realize is that Apple computers are different. People keep these computers for longer periods of time, they almost become novelty items. When the hell have you heard someone post a DELL LISA on EBAY? You know how people recycle their Macs for the most part? They pass them on to someone, schools, their local YMCA because it's always a useful piece of equipment that lasts for a good amount of time. They also reduce their footprint by not breaking down as much as their PC counter parts.
Of all the Macs I've owned in the past 10 years, I've NEVER had to take my Mac to get it fixed such as a replaced motherboard or anything like that. Macs last longer, they are useful for longer periods of time, etc. LEARN TO EVALUATE THAT GREENwhatever. I've owned a G4, an iMac, a pizza-box powerpc, and I know where all these computers are located, and they still function. I know they're not in some dump.
redkamel
Apr 13, 12:54 AM
just want to throw something out there on the color correction argument...(I dont do video work, but photo)
Implementing color correction into FCP shouldn't have any bearing on a more advanced tool like Color. Aperture has a lot of "advanced tools" that work fine for many projects...but to get nitty gritty I need plug ins and photoshop.
I would imagine Apple is adding color correction so people who just need basic color editing don't need to go buy something big and complicated like Color. I can edit out dust spots, trash and "could" make black and white shots on Aperture..which is fine for parties, landscapes and such.. But for portraits, wedding shots, stuff I care about I use plugins, and if I need layer masks and such its off to photoshop land!
I don't see what the hubub about color correction is.
I'd be more interested to hear about FCP in broadcast vs film though. Sounds interesting!
Implementing color correction into FCP shouldn't have any bearing on a more advanced tool like Color. Aperture has a lot of "advanced tools" that work fine for many projects...but to get nitty gritty I need plug ins and photoshop.
I would imagine Apple is adding color correction so people who just need basic color editing don't need to go buy something big and complicated like Color. I can edit out dust spots, trash and "could" make black and white shots on Aperture..which is fine for parties, landscapes and such.. But for portraits, wedding shots, stuff I care about I use plugins, and if I need layer masks and such its off to photoshop land!
I don't see what the hubub about color correction is.
I'd be more interested to hear about FCP in broadcast vs film though. Sounds interesting!
CoryTV
Apr 12, 11:30 PM
You're assuming that if you didn't see a demo of it, it doesn't exist. iMovie has titling built in. They didn't demo titling this evening. Therefore, you're presuming this app has less titling than iMovie!
That seems pretty silly.
I made no such assumption, as far as less titling than imovie. But If there's a June release date, there is not 1 single major feature that hasn't been fully implemented. They are in final Beta. If they had a really high end titler/graphics engine, they would have shown it. Just like they would have shown high end grading. I'm not saying they're not coming at some point down the road, but I will eat a $100 bill on video if they have the full functionality of something like Color built in to this when it ships.
Look maybe what this all comes down to is this: They had to start somewhere, and they wanted to start selling it as soon as possible, and hope people will use FCS 3 + FCPX together until FCSX (why not jump to 10?) is released in 2 years.
Maybe this does have media sharing between stations, and pro tape i/o (which is still used by broadcast) But they don't need broadcast. That's the point. At $299 for the software, all they care about is people buying Apple Computers. And you know what? People buy Apple Computers who use Avid. Because they know at the very least, they can use FCP/Avid/CS5.5 on one system. And I do. And I will. I was just hoping at some point, I wouldn't have to choose between 3 NLE's on a per-project basis, as I will most likely be doing for the foreseeable future.
I LOVE the shiny new features on this. Thank GOD for 64-bit multicore. But in a lot of ways, tomorrow, many people will point out that Avid has been doing resolution and framerate independent timelines with ZERO rendering for like 18 months now. And Adobe's new warp stabilizer and h.264/avchd/red support are still pretty freakin amazing.
And I saw all the features through a tiny webstream, so maybe when I see it in glorious HD h.264 I'll change my mind.
But there's no reason in the 4 years since FCP 6 they couldn't have done all this and more. (FCP 7 was a really minor update) That's my frustration. They've been sitting on the COLOR tech, and they didn't fully integrate it? So we're still going to have to deal with the horrible round tripping as a best case senario? Or they didn't take some of the ideas of motion and integrate them seamlessly into the timeline, so we still have to use a separate FX program? Trust me, you could do this, and it would still be a good UI.
But fine, I'll plunk the $299 down and finally feel like I'm making use of all 8 of my cores, and pray for a day where I don't have to switch back and forth between apps.
That seems pretty silly.
I made no such assumption, as far as less titling than imovie. But If there's a June release date, there is not 1 single major feature that hasn't been fully implemented. They are in final Beta. If they had a really high end titler/graphics engine, they would have shown it. Just like they would have shown high end grading. I'm not saying they're not coming at some point down the road, but I will eat a $100 bill on video if they have the full functionality of something like Color built in to this when it ships.
Look maybe what this all comes down to is this: They had to start somewhere, and they wanted to start selling it as soon as possible, and hope people will use FCS 3 + FCPX together until FCSX (why not jump to 10?) is released in 2 years.
Maybe this does have media sharing between stations, and pro tape i/o (which is still used by broadcast) But they don't need broadcast. That's the point. At $299 for the software, all they care about is people buying Apple Computers. And you know what? People buy Apple Computers who use Avid. Because they know at the very least, they can use FCP/Avid/CS5.5 on one system. And I do. And I will. I was just hoping at some point, I wouldn't have to choose between 3 NLE's on a per-project basis, as I will most likely be doing for the foreseeable future.
I LOVE the shiny new features on this. Thank GOD for 64-bit multicore. But in a lot of ways, tomorrow, many people will point out that Avid has been doing resolution and framerate independent timelines with ZERO rendering for like 18 months now. And Adobe's new warp stabilizer and h.264/avchd/red support are still pretty freakin amazing.
And I saw all the features through a tiny webstream, so maybe when I see it in glorious HD h.264 I'll change my mind.
But there's no reason in the 4 years since FCP 6 they couldn't have done all this and more. (FCP 7 was a really minor update) That's my frustration. They've been sitting on the COLOR tech, and they didn't fully integrate it? So we're still going to have to deal with the horrible round tripping as a best case senario? Or they didn't take some of the ideas of motion and integrate them seamlessly into the timeline, so we still have to use a separate FX program? Trust me, you could do this, and it would still be a good UI.
But fine, I'll plunk the $299 down and finally feel like I'm making use of all 8 of my cores, and pray for a day where I don't have to switch back and forth between apps.
MacRumors
Sep 12, 03:16 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
In a rare move, Apple provided a sneak peak of the long rumored Apple media center. Currently without a final product name, it has been codenamed iTV and has the apperance of a flattened Mac mini.
Providing various audio and video outputs, it is intended to be connected to a TV, communicating wirelessly with your Mac or PC and displaying a Front Row like interface for the content on your computer.
Key features:
� Built-in power supply (no power brick)
� USB, Ethernet and 802.11 wireless connectivity
� HDMI, optical audio, component video and RCA (phono) audio outputs
� Works with the Apple Remote
The 'iTV' is to be available in Q1 priced at $299.
In a rare move, Apple provided a sneak peak of the long rumored Apple media center. Currently without a final product name, it has been codenamed iTV and has the apperance of a flattened Mac mini.
Providing various audio and video outputs, it is intended to be connected to a TV, communicating wirelessly with your Mac or PC and displaying a Front Row like interface for the content on your computer.
Key features:
� Built-in power supply (no power brick)
� USB, Ethernet and 802.11 wireless connectivity
� HDMI, optical audio, component video and RCA (phono) audio outputs
� Works with the Apple Remote
The 'iTV' is to be available in Q1 priced at $299.
0 comments:
Post a Comment