fertilized-egg
Apr 2, 09:35 PM
Mp Myth. Is that the same as Steve's old favorite, The megahertz myth:D
Sorry, I just thought that would be funny.
MP is really a myth. The single biggest factor for the image quality of a sensor is the sensor size. Assuming image processing and sensor technology are roughly of the same generation, a large 4 megapixel sensor will beat the crap out of a phone camera with 8 megapixel sensor except resolution testing under good lighting. And most people just don't need that much resolution.
The Nokia N8 was an exception because they went for a huge(relatively speaking) sensor that was as large as the top of the line P&S like the Canon G series cameras. However with the physics involved you have to pay the price through the added thickness. I highly doubt anyone other than Nokia will take a gamble like that.
Sorry, I just thought that would be funny.
MP is really a myth. The single biggest factor for the image quality of a sensor is the sensor size. Assuming image processing and sensor technology are roughly of the same generation, a large 4 megapixel sensor will beat the crap out of a phone camera with 8 megapixel sensor except resolution testing under good lighting. And most people just don't need that much resolution.
The Nokia N8 was an exception because they went for a huge(relatively speaking) sensor that was as large as the top of the line P&S like the Canon G series cameras. However with the physics involved you have to pay the price through the added thickness. I highly doubt anyone other than Nokia will take a gamble like that.
BRLawyer
Nov 7, 06:12 AM
Hi...do you think this upgrade will solve the ramdon MB crash problems? Or do you think, as someone told me yesterday, that this problems might be already be solved?
They were solved already with the last firmware update...and we're gonna have new MBs until next Tuesday, I am pretty sure.
They were solved already with the last firmware update...and we're gonna have new MBs until next Tuesday, I am pretty sure.
mr evil brkfast
Oct 11, 03:00 PM
I think it was Motorola's Fault to start with. Ever since the G4 Debuted they have not pushed for improvements and left Apple having to drop speeds in realeased products (500 to 450 in the original), and dual processors (July2000) with no speed bump.
Apple should have realised long ago Mot uselessness and SERIOUSLY investigated other options, so the recent 1.25 GHZ update and any future poor updates are Apple's fault!
Apple should have realised long ago Mot uselessness and SERIOUSLY investigated other options, so the recent 1.25 GHZ update and any future poor updates are Apple's fault!
Tommyg117
Aug 2, 09:25 PM
bad news. I better tell my girlfriend. How many macbooks does this affect? All of them?
vienna
Sep 22, 12:58 PM
It's not like they are just going to stop selling DVD's from certain studios. People who want to buy a DVD that Walmart doesn't stock will just go to Best Buy or buy them from Amazon.
I don't see how Walmart has much bargining power here without shooting themselves in the foot.
I don't see how Walmart has much bargining power here without shooting themselves in the foot.
Frisco
Mar 30, 08:18 PM
That is if America is under immediate threat, hence Bush's big case about WMDs before invading Iraq. America was under no threat from Libya. The President cannot simply go to war because he feels like it. That is definitely not a power he has by the Constitution but it is a power he'll take nonetheless. The Executive branch has taken more and more power away from the legislature and, most of all, the people and I don't think it'll stop until things get much worse.
I really hope he isn't under the Keynesian impression that war is good for one's economy. This is the mark of an empire in decline.
America did not go to war. It was a UN resolution. If America went to war Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi would be dead by now. Anyone who wishes this comparison to Bush is a fool.
I really hope he isn't under the Keynesian impression that war is good for one's economy. This is the mark of an empire in decline.
America did not go to war. It was a UN resolution. If America went to war Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi would be dead by now. Anyone who wishes this comparison to Bush is a fool.
thegreatunknown
Oct 16, 04:01 PM
vitaboy:
I didn't want to write such a long response but you took the words right out of me. THANKS!
I for one think the capability you speak of is on the edge of an announcement and will be the zune spotlight stealer... probably built into this widescreen thing people believe is coming.
I didn't want to write such a long response but you took the words right out of me. THANKS!
I for one think the capability you speak of is on the edge of an announcement and will be the zune spotlight stealer... probably built into this widescreen thing people believe is coming.
tony hatbasket
Mar 25, 03:28 PM
Why not just change the setting?
Settings -> Messages -> Play Alert Tone
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=278157&stc=1&d=1301084534
-Kevin
It is a different issue. That relates to repeating the tone after a couple of minutes if the user hasn't read the message. The "bug" we are referring to is that the SMS vibrate alert has gone from a continuous pulse to a "double-click" style. It is a positive for some, but for me it's a negative. Seems to be louder, and more obtrusive. Hard to describe.
Settings -> Messages -> Play Alert Tone
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=278157&stc=1&d=1301084534
-Kevin
It is a different issue. That relates to repeating the tone after a couple of minutes if the user hasn't read the message. The "bug" we are referring to is that the SMS vibrate alert has gone from a continuous pulse to a "double-click" style. It is a positive for some, but for me it's a negative. Seems to be louder, and more obtrusive. Hard to describe.
Lixivial
Oct 15, 08:05 PM
now go drink your kool-aid everyone...:)
Is it Black Cherry? That stuff's bad news.
Is it Black Cherry? That stuff's bad news.
fivepoint
Mar 29, 08:26 AM
I don't know about that. Check out #2 ...
If the United States were under immediate threat, do you really think the president would have to write a report to congress "setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"?
As for Rand Paul's objections, it's so geopolitically and historically ignorant, it's beyond contempt. It's been hilarious watching the right run around to find a consistent line of attack on this. Congress hasn't declared war since the 1940s.
This is a multilateral action with the backing of a Security Council resolution. The Daily Telegraph's rantings about Al Qaeda are little more than Gaddafi propaganda.
As for US interests, many of you including the racist fringe christianist Pauls, are not connecting the dots:
The entire point of this is in the long-term. Apart from denying a victorious Gaddafi an opportunity to create trouble to his neighbours and destabilise the region, it is to provide support for popular uprisings in order to deny radicalism the oxygen it needs.
It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent morality no longer matters, only justifying war and protecting the political future of the first black president.
The constitution was written in regards to war specifically to stifle the power of the president which the founders knew would be more predisposed to war, and to put the power in the hands of the people via congress. In fact, as Tom Woods recently put it...
...here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article � whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.
If I�m so wrong, this challenge should be a breeze. If you evade this challenge, or call me names, or make peripheral arguments instead, I will take that as an admission of defeat.
We can argue all day long about whether or not war with Libya was justified, you'll talk about the threat of mass killings, I'll talk about the tens of other nations which are in similar circumstances which receive NO American aid and the logical fallacy of suggesting it's our role to play in picking sides on every civil war around the world... but the point here is that it's straight up unconstitutional, and CANDIDATE Obama (you know, the one you voted for) completely agrees. But for some reason, now that he's president you think it's ok for him to switch his views 180 degrees and still are unwilling to admit you agree with Rand Paul even though his position is far more consistent with candidate Obama's. Sounds awfully hypocritical.
This was my impression as well. If correct, Obama has no business doing what he's done--right, wrong, paid for or not. Personally, I'm glad somebody's stopping Gaddafi from acting unchecked--but that doesn't excuse circumventing the constitution to do so.
Yes.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
Yes.
Uh yeah. Saw that on Meet the Press. Paul is only telling a half-truth. Gates went on to say that other NATO countries felt they have a vital interest in Libya, and I think we all understand how the NATO treaty works. Whether or not you believe or agree with that, the fact is that Paul misrepresented Gates' statement.
I don't want to be the one to tell you, but Americans hold no allegiance to NATO or to the United Nations. In addition, no treaties or otherwise passed by these two organizations have any legal effect on our sovereign nation. The UN or NATO passing a resolution to engage in military action does not serve as an ALTERNATIVE to a declaration of war by the U.S. congress.
Also, I do not believe his position was misrepresented. If you watched Gates' testimony before the war, you'll see that he was dragged kicking and screaming in to this war. He is of the strong opinion that this was a bad idea and that Libya is not vital to U.S. interests. His comment that the 'mid-east' is part of our national interest was an extremely long reach in a pathetic attempt to find some sort of overlap between his position and the administration he works for. I'd say Paul's analysis of Gates' position is much better than any analysis which suggests he thinks the war is justified.
If the United States were under immediate threat, do you really think the president would have to write a report to congress "setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"?
As for Rand Paul's objections, it's so geopolitically and historically ignorant, it's beyond contempt. It's been hilarious watching the right run around to find a consistent line of attack on this. Congress hasn't declared war since the 1940s.
This is a multilateral action with the backing of a Security Council resolution. The Daily Telegraph's rantings about Al Qaeda are little more than Gaddafi propaganda.
As for US interests, many of you including the racist fringe christianist Pauls, are not connecting the dots:
The entire point of this is in the long-term. Apart from denying a victorious Gaddafi an opportunity to create trouble to his neighbours and destabilise the region, it is to provide support for popular uprisings in order to deny radicalism the oxygen it needs.
It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent morality no longer matters, only justifying war and protecting the political future of the first black president.
The constitution was written in regards to war specifically to stifle the power of the president which the founders knew would be more predisposed to war, and to put the power in the hands of the people via congress. In fact, as Tom Woods recently put it...
...here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article � whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.
If I�m so wrong, this challenge should be a breeze. If you evade this challenge, or call me names, or make peripheral arguments instead, I will take that as an admission of defeat.
We can argue all day long about whether or not war with Libya was justified, you'll talk about the threat of mass killings, I'll talk about the tens of other nations which are in similar circumstances which receive NO American aid and the logical fallacy of suggesting it's our role to play in picking sides on every civil war around the world... but the point here is that it's straight up unconstitutional, and CANDIDATE Obama (you know, the one you voted for) completely agrees. But for some reason, now that he's president you think it's ok for him to switch his views 180 degrees and still are unwilling to admit you agree with Rand Paul even though his position is far more consistent with candidate Obama's. Sounds awfully hypocritical.
This was my impression as well. If correct, Obama has no business doing what he's done--right, wrong, paid for or not. Personally, I'm glad somebody's stopping Gaddafi from acting unchecked--but that doesn't excuse circumventing the constitution to do so.
Yes.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
Yes.
Uh yeah. Saw that on Meet the Press. Paul is only telling a half-truth. Gates went on to say that other NATO countries felt they have a vital interest in Libya, and I think we all understand how the NATO treaty works. Whether or not you believe or agree with that, the fact is that Paul misrepresented Gates' statement.
I don't want to be the one to tell you, but Americans hold no allegiance to NATO or to the United Nations. In addition, no treaties or otherwise passed by these two organizations have any legal effect on our sovereign nation. The UN or NATO passing a resolution to engage in military action does not serve as an ALTERNATIVE to a declaration of war by the U.S. congress.
Also, I do not believe his position was misrepresented. If you watched Gates' testimony before the war, you'll see that he was dragged kicking and screaming in to this war. He is of the strong opinion that this was a bad idea and that Libya is not vital to U.S. interests. His comment that the 'mid-east' is part of our national interest was an extremely long reach in a pathetic attempt to find some sort of overlap between his position and the administration he works for. I'd say Paul's analysis of Gates' position is much better than any analysis which suggests he thinks the war is justified.
LSK6453
Oct 26, 05:47 PM
I applied the firmware w/o issue... Looks to be running well and my temps are staying more even as I continue to use it.
43.2 C right now
43.2 C right now
calderone
Oct 18, 10:02 PM
I like that desk. Who is it by?
Ikea:
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/20115533
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/40115532
Looks like these legs:
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/10115519
Ikea:
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/20115533
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/40115532
Looks like these legs:
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/10115519
sebascrub
Mar 14, 08:13 PM
My lovely girlfriend. Any C&C would be greatly appreciated!
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5215/5525017352_73c4930280_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sebascrub/5525017352/)
DSC_1882 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sebascrub/5525017352/) by sebascrub (http://www.flickr.com/people/sebascrub/), on Flickr
D5000, 35mm, f/8, 1/800, ISO 200
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5215/5525017352_73c4930280_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sebascrub/5525017352/)
DSC_1882 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sebascrub/5525017352/) by sebascrub (http://www.flickr.com/people/sebascrub/), on Flickr
D5000, 35mm, f/8, 1/800, ISO 200
compuwar
Mar 12, 03:21 AM
I just barely got my first speedlight a few weeks ago. So I can point it up and put it just low enough to trigger the strobes?
You can also tape an exposed piece of film over the head with it turned down to trigger the strobes. Alternately, just use the on-camera flash as your fill and task your usual fill as a background light to get that nice 3D Hollywood effect. You might want a diffuser or small softbox for the flash gun though.
Paul
You can also tape an exposed piece of film over the head with it turned down to trigger the strobes. Alternately, just use the on-camera flash as your fill and task your usual fill as a background light to get that nice 3D Hollywood effect. You might want a diffuser or small softbox for the flash gun though.
Paul
AgentElliot007
Mar 25, 05:44 PM
For those having Error 1013 issues, the steps outlined here just fixed my issue. iPad 2 now successfully updated to 4.3.1, though I have to reload all of my apps, music and videos...about 25 gigs worth. Can't wait to try the new update out in an hour or two...:rolleyes:
http://www.simonblog.com/2010/11/25/how-to-fix-itunes-1013-error-during-ios-4-2-upgrade/
http://www.simonblog.com/2010/11/25/how-to-fix-itunes-1013-error-during-ios-4-2-upgrade/
emagdnim015
Sep 12, 03:48 PM
my favorite new feature is the backward syncing:
http://www.apple.com/itunes/sync/transfer.html
http://www.apple.com/itunes/sync/transfer.html
SteveLV702
Mar 21, 09:17 PM
I somehow doubt its true, but its a nice story.
When Ive returned a product, they have never asked for my name or address, and if I didnt give them my email address, there is no way they could contact me.
interesting cause when I bought my iPad2, iPad1, iPhone4 they always asked for my email and then it pulled up my info and they would ask me to verify that my info is correct...
Then if you register it they have your info that way to....
When Ive returned a product, they have never asked for my name or address, and if I didnt give them my email address, there is no way they could contact me.
interesting cause when I bought my iPad2, iPad1, iPhone4 they always asked for my email and then it pulled up my info and they would ask me to verify that my info is correct...
Then if you register it they have your info that way to....
MacinDoc
Sep 4, 11:30 PM
dumbest
argument
ever
you guys are arguing over nickels and dimes when it really comes down to preference. people who like os x buy it. people who like windows buy it. they dont sit and think about the cost difference between the two for the most part.
i thought die hard mac os freaks loved it for its functionality and stability, not its price advantage? and windows haters just hate windows no matter what. good for them. im a big whore and ill get the benefits of both. ;)
I hate Windows because I fight with it at work every day. Windows is why I have a Mac.
But the point of this thread is the debate over whether Vista will be reasonably priced at $399 for a full install set, vs. $129 for OS X 10.5.
argument
ever
you guys are arguing over nickels and dimes when it really comes down to preference. people who like os x buy it. people who like windows buy it. they dont sit and think about the cost difference between the two for the most part.
i thought die hard mac os freaks loved it for its functionality and stability, not its price advantage? and windows haters just hate windows no matter what. good for them. im a big whore and ill get the benefits of both. ;)
I hate Windows because I fight with it at work every day. Windows is why I have a Mac.
But the point of this thread is the debate over whether Vista will be reasonably priced at $399 for a full install set, vs. $129 for OS X 10.5.
See Flat
Apr 14, 01:05 AM
Why isn�t anyone talking about how ugly this interface looks? White on Dark backgrounds = not fun on the eyes. Please tell me this isn�t how it will look. The background rendering and all that stuff is great, but I HOPE this interface is customizable and has the ability to look a little like the final cut of yesteryear.
Dont agree. Not ugly. I've heard of people not liking white text on black backgrounds. I have no problem at all with that, and in fact prefer that in darker rooms. Blasting white screens tire me more in a dimly lit room.
Dont agree. Not ugly. I've heard of people not liking white text on black backgrounds. I have no problem at all with that, and in fact prefer that in darker rooms. Blasting white screens tire me more in a dimly lit room.
Warbrain
Nov 8, 09:29 AM
Touche:D :D !!!!!!!!!!!
Do you even know how to use that word?
Do you even know how to use that word?
Bonte
Jul 24, 02:33 PM
I like the dictionary idea. But aren't we getting into the realm of the tablet/PDA now?
The big difference is extreme simplicity and loads of content on a central and popular place, iTunes. Its amazing to see the iPod gradually grow into a multifunctional device and the road it took to get there.
The big difference is extreme simplicity and loads of content on a central and popular place, iTunes. Its amazing to see the iPod gradually grow into a multifunctional device and the road it took to get there.
megapopular
Nov 12, 01:12 PM
Couldn't all Facebook apps also be approved by default, and only be given access to a user's personal information by explicit consent of that user?
Like the world has done such a bang up job of being trustworthy, lol. Apple has to do what they believe they have to do to survive and thrive. They haven't done it by the conventional/popular ways of thinking. I never said that Apple is perfect or that their approval process is just right. But it is what it is. People aren't all trustworthy, that's probably a reason why they clamp down (whether right or wrong in certain instances) on app approval.
Like the world has done such a bang up job of being trustworthy, lol. Apple has to do what they believe they have to do to survive and thrive. They haven't done it by the conventional/popular ways of thinking. I never said that Apple is perfect or that their approval process is just right. But it is what it is. People aren't all trustworthy, that's probably a reason why they clamp down (whether right or wrong in certain instances) on app approval.
brepublican
Oct 16, 12:06 PM
the zune isn't out yet...
And just like Vista, who the hell knows when thats gonna be?
Zuning (or whatever the hell it is) is a whole load of nonsense. Only about 97.1% of all hot chicks have no friggin clue how to do anything on their iPods other than play music (calenders, contacts, equaliser). You expect that blonde sitting across from you at the airport to know Zuning? Well she's the one who routinely clicks on "U R hte 1th vistir!! U won a PINK Ipod Nano!!! CLICK HERE" links...
HA! Good luck :rolleyes:
And just like Vista, who the hell knows when thats gonna be?
Zuning (or whatever the hell it is) is a whole load of nonsense. Only about 97.1% of all hot chicks have no friggin clue how to do anything on their iPods other than play music (calenders, contacts, equaliser). You expect that blonde sitting across from you at the airport to know Zuning? Well she's the one who routinely clicks on "U R hte 1th vistir!! U won a PINK Ipod Nano!!! CLICK HERE" links...
HA! Good luck :rolleyes:
Malcster
Sep 12, 02:48 PM
Ok, mines crashing everytime on the gapless playback scan.. Grrr