fyrefly
Apr 29, 03:03 PM
That was actually fixed in the build before this one.
Ah, okay. Guess I just didn't notice it till this build. :)
Ah, okay. Guess I just didn't notice it till this build. :)
Gem�tlichkeit
Apr 6, 04:47 PM
Can't wait :)
Branskins
Apr 29, 09:46 PM
Versions seems to work a lot faster. It has animated stars!!!!
asencif
Oct 17, 09:13 AM
The better technology for the future is definitely Blu-Ray, however it may be trying to make it's way too early and that is working against it. Prices are just too high right now for Blu-Ray drives and discs and the PS3 is a gaming system that is just too pricey.
HD-DVD is much simpler and has a more recognizeable name and getting much cheaper which a lot of times is what the consumer market will favor. Right now it's still going to be another 2 years before people start looking away from DVD itself. How many people have a HDTV right now? When I say people I mean non-tech aficionados like us in these forums.
HD-DVD is much simpler and has a more recognizeable name and getting much cheaper which a lot of times is what the consumer market will favor. Right now it's still going to be another 2 years before people start looking away from DVD itself. How many people have a HDTV right now? When I say people I mean non-tech aficionados like us in these forums.
muffinss
Mar 25, 02:43 PM
I own a 27 inch iMac because I want a big, powerful computer. I own an iPhone because I want a small portable phone that allows me to check my email while I am gone.
I don't want a 27 inch iMac that's a giant iPhone running an mobile OS. I don't want a small phone that's running a full blown computer OS that's way to complicated and overkill for such a weak, small mobile device. People saying they want iOS to replace OSX on all desktops is like saying they want Windows Mobile to replace Windows all together. No offense, but its a stupid idea.
That's great if all you do if check email and browse the web on your $2,000 computer. There's other people out there that actually use their computer for other things besides checking Facebook on their $2,000 computer.
I don't mind if they merge features back and forth between the two. Features that make sense and wont hinder the two from performing their main functionality. One being a computer OS while the other being a small, mobile device OS.
OS X has been the best computer OS ever made, and was the best decision for Apple in buying out NexT and building their next generation computer OS after it. I hope they keep making a computer OS as well as a mobile OS.
I don't want a 27 inch iMac that's a giant iPhone running an mobile OS. I don't want a small phone that's running a full blown computer OS that's way to complicated and overkill for such a weak, small mobile device. People saying they want iOS to replace OSX on all desktops is like saying they want Windows Mobile to replace Windows all together. No offense, but its a stupid idea.
That's great if all you do if check email and browse the web on your $2,000 computer. There's other people out there that actually use their computer for other things besides checking Facebook on their $2,000 computer.
I don't mind if they merge features back and forth between the two. Features that make sense and wont hinder the two from performing their main functionality. One being a computer OS while the other being a small, mobile device OS.
OS X has been the best computer OS ever made, and was the best decision for Apple in buying out NexT and building their next generation computer OS after it. I hope they keep making a computer OS as well as a mobile OS.
theman5725
Nov 16, 02:59 PM
Apple just switched to Intel. Why would they go to AMD already?
powers74
Apr 16, 03:04 PM
You can see that the iPhone text is not aligned in this pic.
Yes, but his analysis shed no light on that fact and actually made the rendering - if you were to assume his perspective was correct - look lit it was some sort of parallelogram. It made no sense.
Yes, but his analysis shed no light on that fact and actually made the rendering - if you were to assume his perspective was correct - look lit it was some sort of parallelogram. It made no sense.
anotherarunan
Jan 15, 03:14 PM
Three new toys to own (MacBook Air, :apple:tv 2, and Time Capsule) plus an update for my existing toy - iPhone.
Count me as pleased.
Now hopefully an MBP refresh will happen next Tuesday.
what you're getting ALL of them? :eek:
Count me as pleased.
Now hopefully an MBP refresh will happen next Tuesday.
what you're getting ALL of them? :eek:
krestfallen
Nov 16, 01:02 PM
intel offers better chips for the same price. and why releasing a thurion notebook? it's way slower and consumes more power.
the one and only possibility for me is an super-beginner notebook with a weak chip.
the one and only possibility for me is an super-beginner notebook with a weak chip.
ironsienna
Apr 30, 04:04 AM
The idea of having a slider for changing tabs, having the active tab lighter in color than darker, reminds me of the interface of my LED Machines app, where you have to choose between music from the itunes collection or sound for the alarm.
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/led-machines-led-flashlight/id384295424?mt=8
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/4656/alarma.png
Its being there since August. Do you think it was a source of inspiration for them?? ;)
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/led-machines-led-flashlight/id384295424?mt=8
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/4656/alarma.png
Its being there since August. Do you think it was a source of inspiration for them?? ;)
cynerjist
Jan 8, 10:45 PM
When you spend the whole year waiting for the event you want the moment to be perfect.
What are we doing here...losing our virginity? Yeesh!
lmfao
What are we doing here...losing our virginity? Yeesh!
lmfao
dr_lha
Oct 17, 10:06 AM
so it's kind of a mixture here.
1. more capacity -> blu-ray
2. lower price -> hd-dvd
3. porn industry choses the cheapest format -> hd-dvd
the big thing will be the players. blu-ray players had a bad start (frames were dropped, image quality wasn't that good, delays).
it looks like blu-ray will have a hard fight.
The capacity argument was only really important for VHS vs Betamax because of the recording aspect. AFAIK there are no HD-DVD or BluRay recorders right now so essentially the capacity of the disk is meaningless to most people for Movies. Picture quality should be the deciding factor, and much like VHS vs Betamax, most people apparently can't see any real difference between BluRay and HD-DVD.
Really the only thing BluRay has on its side is the PS3.
1. more capacity -> blu-ray
2. lower price -> hd-dvd
3. porn industry choses the cheapest format -> hd-dvd
the big thing will be the players. blu-ray players had a bad start (frames were dropped, image quality wasn't that good, delays).
it looks like blu-ray will have a hard fight.
The capacity argument was only really important for VHS vs Betamax because of the recording aspect. AFAIK there are no HD-DVD or BluRay recorders right now so essentially the capacity of the disk is meaningless to most people for Movies. Picture quality should be the deciding factor, and much like VHS vs Betamax, most people apparently can't see any real difference between BluRay and HD-DVD.
Really the only thing BluRay has on its side is the PS3.
moderately
Apr 30, 10:19 AM
Agreed. I thought we were well past the days when computer applications had to emulate their analog compatriots. Leather, wood, paper, stone = not for computer UIs please! :mad:
Speaking of bad iCal, why is it I can't flip pages in the Calendar app on my iPad by actually flicking the pages (a la iBooks)? Instead I have to tap on arrow buttons? What's up with that???
I like this; it shows the world is still in motion. "apps shouldn't look like their analog compatriots but they should behave like them. "
Speaking of bad iCal, why is it I can't flip pages in the Calendar app on my iPad by actually flicking the pages (a la iBooks)? Instead I have to tap on arrow buttons? What's up with that???
I like this; it shows the world is still in motion. "apps shouldn't look like their analog compatriots but they should behave like them. "
smokingtrout
Sep 12, 01:11 AM
I really don't care anymore...tomorrow will probably follow a familiar formula - some disappointments, some bullseyes.
This is what I want after seeing the infamous "cube with a handle" patent that surfaced earlier this week:
A projector, similar to (http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/07/epson-announces-emp-twd3-projector-with-built-in-dvd-player/) large capacity HDD, WIFI, Bluetooth, and maybe a media-only version of OSX. In fact, maybe just Front Row. One could transfer movies downloaded (or created in iMovie) to the projector's HDD to then be projected to a wall or screen. Better yet, with DSL or Cable hooked up directly, one could download directly to the HDD. DVR? Additional Combo drive? Built in speakers (perhaps a couple from the Hi-FI) would provide sound should you choose not to use the optical audio out. Firewire 400/800. HDMI I/O The kicker? A protective sheath and handle like in the patent picture that would allow the owner to take the relatively compact projector to other places. The addition of WiFi would allow future Apple wireless products to recognize and stream to the projector. Who wants to crowd around an iPod to look at a clip on a 2.5" display anyway?
Wow. All this speculation has gone to my head. Time for bed.
This is what I want after seeing the infamous "cube with a handle" patent that surfaced earlier this week:
A projector, similar to (http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/07/epson-announces-emp-twd3-projector-with-built-in-dvd-player/) large capacity HDD, WIFI, Bluetooth, and maybe a media-only version of OSX. In fact, maybe just Front Row. One could transfer movies downloaded (or created in iMovie) to the projector's HDD to then be projected to a wall or screen. Better yet, with DSL or Cable hooked up directly, one could download directly to the HDD. DVR? Additional Combo drive? Built in speakers (perhaps a couple from the Hi-FI) would provide sound should you choose not to use the optical audio out. Firewire 400/800. HDMI I/O The kicker? A protective sheath and handle like in the patent picture that would allow the owner to take the relatively compact projector to other places. The addition of WiFi would allow future Apple wireless products to recognize and stream to the projector. Who wants to crowd around an iPod to look at a clip on a 2.5" display anyway?
Wow. All this speculation has gone to my head. Time for bed.
Play Ultimate
Oct 3, 01:46 PM
This is a little disappointing that Steve is confirming to keynote MWSF 2007 when it's just October, which means he probably wants us to wait (I hope not). :(
Besides, hasn't Steve keynoted MWSF every year?
MWSF needs confirmation for thier marketing materials.
I still believe that there will be some type of announcement, on something, before Thanksgiving.
Besides, hasn't Steve keynoted MWSF every year?
MWSF needs confirmation for thier marketing materials.
I still believe that there will be some type of announcement, on something, before Thanksgiving.
ElCidRo
Apr 25, 06:56 PM
I think they will announce the iPhone 5 at the WWDC like they usually do.
I think they are feeding the misinformation through their channels so the iphone 4 sales won't slow down. :rolleyes:
A 3.7" retina display would be really great.
I'm still using an iPhone 3GS and since I got my iPad 2, I can't stand the low dpi display anymore.
I think they are feeding the misinformation through their channels so the iphone 4 sales won't slow down. :rolleyes:
A 3.7" retina display would be really great.
I'm still using an iPhone 3GS and since I got my iPad 2, I can't stand the low dpi display anymore.
ritmomundo
Mar 18, 04:15 PM
Did you even read my original post?
yes. what's your point?
yes. what's your point?
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
lapeno
Apr 7, 03:05 AM
About damn time too...
http://i54.tinypic.com/5n30z.jpg
Looking forward to shooting with this new gear...
Really nice choice!
http://i54.tinypic.com/5n30z.jpg
Looking forward to shooting with this new gear...
Really nice choice!
MacFly123
Apr 15, 01:40 PM
F-A-K-E!!! :rolleyes:
It can't be all metal. Otherwise it will have some serious signal issues.
Using aluminum would hinder the cellular reception wouldn't it ?
Why do people NOT understand, that even Apple, who LOVES aluminum, switched from that to palstic... WHY??? WHY would Apple of all companies do that??? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WORK WITH THE CELL RECEPTION ON THE iPHONE PERIOD! They are NOT going to go back to aluminum lol! :rolleyes:
Besides that, this is UGLY! Way harsh edges, and the curvature on the back isn't even smooth, there are like sharp angles at the corners. On the iPad this design makes sense, on the iPhone that would be terribly uncomfortable in your hand!
It can't be all metal. Otherwise it will have some serious signal issues.
Using aluminum would hinder the cellular reception wouldn't it ?
Why do people NOT understand, that even Apple, who LOVES aluminum, switched from that to palstic... WHY??? WHY would Apple of all companies do that??? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WORK WITH THE CELL RECEPTION ON THE iPHONE PERIOD! They are NOT going to go back to aluminum lol! :rolleyes:
Besides that, this is UGLY! Way harsh edges, and the curvature on the back isn't even smooth, there are like sharp angles at the corners. On the iPad this design makes sense, on the iPhone that would be terribly uncomfortable in your hand!
quigleybc
Sep 8, 07:54 PM
kanye west can kiss my ass.....hes a whinny little bitch....
I disagree,
I agree with Kanye West when he said that George Bush doesn't care about black people...I agree with Kanye West when he said "F the Police"
As for all the people on here that think Kanye West "sucks" well that's your opinion, it seems like this site is home to a lot of metal heads...So I don't doubt that a lot of peeps on here think he sucks. Try going to the music discussion and say "metallica sucks" people would freak out..
It was odd that the F bombs were thrown out so casually, yet he censored himself with the N word..."she aint messin with no Broke...."
Why would he do that?
First of all hip hop is hard to pull off live.. it just is. I thought the sound for his performance was terrible. To his credit I though Kanye rose to the occasion and did the best with what he had...
His new album is the best thing to happen to hip hop in years. Seriously, go listen to it...you may stray from your head bangin ways...or not
was it a little awkward ya, but did it suck? no.
At least it wasn't Madonna..or Metallica....THEY suck! :eek: Feel free to freak out...
I disagree,
I agree with Kanye West when he said that George Bush doesn't care about black people...I agree with Kanye West when he said "F the Police"
As for all the people on here that think Kanye West "sucks" well that's your opinion, it seems like this site is home to a lot of metal heads...So I don't doubt that a lot of peeps on here think he sucks. Try going to the music discussion and say "metallica sucks" people would freak out..
It was odd that the F bombs were thrown out so casually, yet he censored himself with the N word..."she aint messin with no Broke...."
Why would he do that?
First of all hip hop is hard to pull off live.. it just is. I thought the sound for his performance was terrible. To his credit I though Kanye rose to the occasion and did the best with what he had...
His new album is the best thing to happen to hip hop in years. Seriously, go listen to it...you may stray from your head bangin ways...or not
was it a little awkward ya, but did it suck? no.
At least it wasn't Madonna..or Metallica....THEY suck! :eek: Feel free to freak out...
Full of Win
Apr 29, 04:41 PM
For the love of god get rid of the faux leather.
Its so ugly. I hope there will be a hack that will bring some taste back to 10.7.
Its so ugly. I hope there will be a hack that will bring some taste back to 10.7.
SBlue1
May 4, 03:53 AM
I don't really see why Apple will never do that. When Jobs said styluses are crap, obviously he didn't mean styluses as writing devices, he meant styluses as the way to interact with OS.
Education applications seem to be of some importance to Apple, and stylus support is pretty much required to make iPad useful for students, for example.
for drawing during class, maybe. there is a lot of stuff in chemistry or physics where you need to make a quick drawing. but for writing? i am typing way faster than i am writing with a pen. and in the end its way more readable. :D
if you really need a stylus there are already lots of options you can buy and use em with your ipad.
tell me i'm wrong.
can the ipad do this effectively now? can a student take notes in class on an ipad? do you really think a student can take readable notes, fast enough, while writing with a 'hovering' hand?
You are maybe wrong, cause I don't use a stylus. :)
A friend is using one and he said it works perfectly once you find the best stylus. There are a lots of different pens. He tried out a few in the store and he said the bad drawing comes from the cheap pens not because of the ipad screen. Try the griffin stylus if you can test it somewhere.
Education applications seem to be of some importance to Apple, and stylus support is pretty much required to make iPad useful for students, for example.
for drawing during class, maybe. there is a lot of stuff in chemistry or physics where you need to make a quick drawing. but for writing? i am typing way faster than i am writing with a pen. and in the end its way more readable. :D
if you really need a stylus there are already lots of options you can buy and use em with your ipad.
tell me i'm wrong.
can the ipad do this effectively now? can a student take notes in class on an ipad? do you really think a student can take readable notes, fast enough, while writing with a 'hovering' hand?
You are maybe wrong, cause I don't use a stylus. :)
A friend is using one and he said it works perfectly once you find the best stylus. There are a lots of different pens. He tried out a few in the store and he said the bad drawing comes from the cheap pens not because of the ipad screen. Try the griffin stylus if you can test it somewhere.
bikertwin
Sep 25, 03:45 PM
Right, a product in development since 2002 (http://photoshopnews.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowlandlightroom-development-story/) was a copy of a product released in 2005 :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Do you really believe Lightroom has been in active development since 2002? I'm thinking it was a proof of concept in 2002.
I mean, if it's really been in development since why isn't it finished yet? Why is it so far behind Aperture?
That claim by Adobe is just ludicrous.
Do you really believe Lightroom has been in active development since 2002? I'm thinking it was a proof of concept in 2002.
I mean, if it's really been in development since why isn't it finished yet? Why is it so far behind Aperture?
That claim by Adobe is just ludicrous.