razzmatazz
Aug 6, 09:58 PM
how long is the keynote?
They last about an hour to 2 hours
They last about an hour to 2 hours
cal6n
Mar 25, 04:46 AM
As I understand it, once the relevant files are installed, these cards don't display anything until the OS boots, but then they (or at least some of them, like the 5770, 5870 and 6870) work just fine.
But what about rEFIt? Will that put a video signal out through DVI or DP? If that'll do the job, then I'm all over a 6870 black!
But what about rEFIt? Will that put a video signal out through DVI or DP? If that'll do the job, then I'm all over a 6870 black!
jettredmont
Aug 16, 02:00 PM
We need flat data rates on mobiles in the UK. It will happen (esp. if they want people to embrace 3g that they spent all the money on), it's just when.
While it's nice to dream, when you are talking about a service (downloading music from your server to your device) that the vast majority of people are going to be using many hours in a day, I doubt you'll see that being "cheap" on the current setups any time soon. For one, there isn't that kind of capacity in the networks. For another, while it may be different in the UK, there are still many pockets of poor or nonexistent coverage. Finally, the cost of portable storage is decreasing significantly (by which I mean, several orders of magnitude) faster than the cost of network bandwidth.
Network capacity is where it all starts off. Why are ringtones so expensive? Well, for one, because people still buy them. But, offering $1 or $0.25 ringtones would yield a killing for both the record companies (getting $0.25 for 1/6th of a song? Seems about right relative to $1/song) and greatly expand the service in terms of total market size (ie, 1/3rd revenue per download, but much more than 3x increase in number of downloads). Why don't they do this? Because their networks, to a one, could not stand for this traffic to increase enough that the market would expand enough to make the change profitable. When you pay $3 for a ringtone download you are paying primarily to keep other people from doing the same. Sounds perverse, but that's the reality when you have a limited-availability resource, it is the foundation of supply vs demand.
Expanding on the second: I'd never, ever, buy something that I would want to use when driving, for instance, across the "boring states" of Nevada and south-eastern Oregon, that requires a constant connection to any type of service. Why? Because even cell phones are useless for about a three hour stretch of Highway 95 going up from Winnemucca. If cell phones aren't working now, how long will it be before some next-generation service comes in and "wires" the place up?
I might shoot myself without my iPod to listen to during that three hours of scrubgrass, migrating crickets, and mountains.
But, seriously, you guys are talking about a concept that would have garnered a lot of conversation fifteen years ago. The fact of the day is, though, that networking is not getting cheaper at a rate of doubling bandwidth per year, and small, portable hard drive storage (or non-hard drive Flash storage, even moreso) is. Wireless networking isn't winning on power consumption either (Flash storage wins there by a longshot as well).
Until people start having libraries that are infeasible to transport with them (which means, hard drive space can't keep up with library space, which certainly isn't the case today as library space isn't doubling per year either)and which can be trickle-downloaded to a low-profile wireless device in realtime, the idea here is dead. Sorry, that's just the facts.
While it's nice to dream, when you are talking about a service (downloading music from your server to your device) that the vast majority of people are going to be using many hours in a day, I doubt you'll see that being "cheap" on the current setups any time soon. For one, there isn't that kind of capacity in the networks. For another, while it may be different in the UK, there are still many pockets of poor or nonexistent coverage. Finally, the cost of portable storage is decreasing significantly (by which I mean, several orders of magnitude) faster than the cost of network bandwidth.
Network capacity is where it all starts off. Why are ringtones so expensive? Well, for one, because people still buy them. But, offering $1 or $0.25 ringtones would yield a killing for both the record companies (getting $0.25 for 1/6th of a song? Seems about right relative to $1/song) and greatly expand the service in terms of total market size (ie, 1/3rd revenue per download, but much more than 3x increase in number of downloads). Why don't they do this? Because their networks, to a one, could not stand for this traffic to increase enough that the market would expand enough to make the change profitable. When you pay $3 for a ringtone download you are paying primarily to keep other people from doing the same. Sounds perverse, but that's the reality when you have a limited-availability resource, it is the foundation of supply vs demand.
Expanding on the second: I'd never, ever, buy something that I would want to use when driving, for instance, across the "boring states" of Nevada and south-eastern Oregon, that requires a constant connection to any type of service. Why? Because even cell phones are useless for about a three hour stretch of Highway 95 going up from Winnemucca. If cell phones aren't working now, how long will it be before some next-generation service comes in and "wires" the place up?
I might shoot myself without my iPod to listen to during that three hours of scrubgrass, migrating crickets, and mountains.
But, seriously, you guys are talking about a concept that would have garnered a lot of conversation fifteen years ago. The fact of the day is, though, that networking is not getting cheaper at a rate of doubling bandwidth per year, and small, portable hard drive storage (or non-hard drive Flash storage, even moreso) is. Wireless networking isn't winning on power consumption either (Flash storage wins there by a longshot as well).
Until people start having libraries that are infeasible to transport with them (which means, hard drive space can't keep up with library space, which certainly isn't the case today as library space isn't doubling per year either)and which can be trickle-downloaded to a low-profile wireless device in realtime, the idea here is dead. Sorry, that's just the facts.
appleguy123
Mar 20, 04:35 PM
Enough with the false comparisons. Homeopathy doesnt actively harm people that buy into it. "ex-gay" therapy is harmful.
Do you think that anyone would stand for a KKK app under the reasoning of "free speech"?
Homeopathy does actively harm people, as it causes them to forgo medicine that actually works, possibly causing premature death from a curable ailment.
25% of Amercans are evangelicals, and wouldn't consider this hate speech. This is a form of the love of god.
Do you think that anyone would stand for a KKK app under the reasoning of "free speech"?
Homeopathy does actively harm people, as it causes them to forgo medicine that actually works, possibly causing premature death from a curable ailment.
25% of Amercans are evangelicals, and wouldn't consider this hate speech. This is a form of the love of god.
MacBoobsPro
Aug 7, 05:42 AM
Haha I was trying to help you out and you turn on me?! What are you, Italian? :p
You'd think that wouldn't you? :p
You'd think that wouldn't you? :p
BlizzardBomb
Aug 29, 08:56 AM
No Merom? :( Mac mini and Mac Pro drifting even further apart now. Although TS have been quite unreliable lately so I'm going to wait for AppleInsider's take on it.
Sean7512
Aug 24, 05:42 PM
I hope it happens soon......that new iMac is sounding nice!!! I think it is obviously coming "VERY SOON." What happened to September 5th? Is that the tuesday after labor day, I think it is....
CQd44
Apr 26, 12:44 PM
I would think if Apple themselves used the term generically it would be a very simple case.
AFPoster
Mar 22, 01:08 PM
(Emphasis added.)
I reiterate my suggestion you take advantage of the educational opportunities available to you. Your nascent reasoning ability might benefit. ;)
Got to love auto spell check. Nuisance sorry.
I reiterate my suggestion you take advantage of the educational opportunities available to you. Your nascent reasoning ability might benefit. ;)
Got to love auto spell check. Nuisance sorry.
Doctor Q
Jul 18, 02:27 PM
Supposedly Mr. Jobs "lost" this round of negotiations...I wouldn't be surprised if he ceded that point to the studios because he knows something is around the corner. One possibility that jumps to mind is competition between studios to be the first to provide pay-to-own content.In the meantime, Movielink already offers rental and purchase options, and I read that they will also be allowing you to burn your own DVDs, although I don't know the details.
This is from their site:
This is from their site:
The Captain
Apr 13, 01:44 AM
Because pros don't need features to make their life easier, and help automatically organise footage?
No professional would let the software identify their subjects. Features like this do nothing to lighten the workflow of their productions. Only amateurs would allow an algorithms to determine what gets logged as what. Regardless of how the rest of the program turn out, the facial recognition is something only amateurs will use. Professionals have a higher standard of quality, and more complex needs than that.
No professional would let the software identify their subjects. Features like this do nothing to lighten the workflow of their productions. Only amateurs would allow an algorithms to determine what gets logged as what. Regardless of how the rest of the program turn out, the facial recognition is something only amateurs will use. Professionals have a higher standard of quality, and more complex needs than that.
wmmk
Nov 27, 05:30 PM
I hope it happens. This would not only be great for Mac Mini buyers, but also laptop owners. We already have 13-17 inches of screen real estate, so 17 more sounds just about perfect! I just hope there'd be a non iSight option so that laptop users wouldn't be paying a premium for something they already paid for.
AFPoster
Mar 22, 01:10 PM
I don't believe you, that's my opinion.
I think thats why I said in the first sentence, "that's my opinion".
I think thats why I said in the first sentence, "that's my opinion".
Multimedia
Sep 6, 10:32 AM
I am a little bit disappointed that it still does not have any built-in TV tuner.No problem. Just add an EyeTV hybrid (http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna) for $150 to one ofthe 4 USB ports and you are good to go. Hang a FW400 external 400GB HD for about $150 total - case and HD - and you have your TV server. Why would Apple do it when Elgato already has the perfect ultimate solution? :confused:
DIMEZ
Nov 27, 02:08 PM
http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o222/standup_ent/149049_1477259727631_1117878822_31068280_7582535_n.jpg
Lebron viii south beach
Lebron viii south beach
kadajawi
Sep 6, 11:21 AM
Now that the Minis are Core Duo I like it more. Even though it's still $599 ($579 Edu) for the low end, it is at least not a solo. The Mini is still a good computer for a low end price range, even if it isn't the very newest processor available. I would definitely recommend a Mini, but since the iMac is so close in the Edu department, it is a little tough for the 1.83 clockspeed.
I don't think the iMac is so close. The low end iMac doesn't has a superdrive, no Front Row remote... it does have more than twice the HD and a slightly faster CPU, but other than that it seems pretty identical to the low end Mac Mini. That means $400 gets me a not so big TFT screen (far less than $200... although the quality may be better on the iMac... but you would get a bigger one for less than $200...), a bit more and faster storage space (external HD? How much is that? $100 for a small one (still bigger than the iMacs 160 GB, if you take the built in space. And you can make use of Time Machine)), and a slightly faster CPU (not a big deal to me) + you get Front Row.
If you don't mind you can get an external superdrive. A DVD writer is 30 � here, dunno about the case. Might be faster too. And you may upgrade the drive to Blue Ray or HD-DVD, later.
I don't think the iMac is so close. The low end iMac doesn't has a superdrive, no Front Row remote... it does have more than twice the HD and a slightly faster CPU, but other than that it seems pretty identical to the low end Mac Mini. That means $400 gets me a not so big TFT screen (far less than $200... although the quality may be better on the iMac... but you would get a bigger one for less than $200...), a bit more and faster storage space (external HD? How much is that? $100 for a small one (still bigger than the iMacs 160 GB, if you take the built in space. And you can make use of Time Machine)), and a slightly faster CPU (not a big deal to me) + you get Front Row.
If you don't mind you can get an external superdrive. A DVD writer is 30 � here, dunno about the case. Might be faster too. And you may upgrade the drive to Blue Ray or HD-DVD, later.
Popeye206
May 2, 05:37 PM
So you're saying we should go back to Mac OS Classic cooperative multi-tasking ?
Hello ?
The 80s called, they want their computing paradigms back. Cooperative multi-tasking makes sense on ressource limited architectures. Even the iPhone/iPad like devices are far from "ressource limited". We had pre-emptive multi-tasking on much less capable devices (think 386s with 8 MB of RAM).
LOL! Yeah... and I remember crashing faster than you click your mouse on those systems. Windows 3.0 and 3.1 were a mess. But of course... most things were back then. how far we've come.
Hello ?
The 80s called, they want their computing paradigms back. Cooperative multi-tasking makes sense on ressource limited architectures. Even the iPhone/iPad like devices are far from "ressource limited". We had pre-emptive multi-tasking on much less capable devices (think 386s with 8 MB of RAM).
LOL! Yeah... and I remember crashing faster than you click your mouse on those systems. Windows 3.0 and 3.1 were a mess. But of course... most things were back then. how far we've come.
MagicWok
Nov 26, 05:04 PM
My last purchase. Bataleon Jam 157. Can't wait for the season to get going - not long now!! :D
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/8324/boardthejam.jpg
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/8324/boardthejam.jpg
Anticlockwork
Jan 6, 12:44 AM
http://i418.photobucket.com/albums/pp263/sochrisash/DSC04078.jpg
No show winner, but its mine :P :D
Woot I'm not the only one!
Here is mine. 72 Super beetle.
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/7638/img0174ix.jpg (http://img600.imageshack.us/i/img0174ix.jpg/)
No show winner, but its mine :P :D
Woot I'm not the only one!
Here is mine. 72 Super beetle.
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/7638/img0174ix.jpg (http://img600.imageshack.us/i/img0174ix.jpg/)
standingquiet
Jan 10, 04:10 PM
Now if I were in England and I was getting a Ford Focus, I think it would have to be a RS. :D
We don't get to play with those on our side of the pond. :(
The RS's are very nice i used to have a Mk 1 RS the limited edition blue one they did 4500 cars of.
The ST's are not much different still have the 2.5 Turbo 5 cylinder engine but only 225bhp. I'm looking at the Mountune Kit with takes it to 260bhp for �1200.
But the new one is to much money �28,000 you can buy much nicer cars with that sort of money.
Matt
We don't get to play with those on our side of the pond. :(
The RS's are very nice i used to have a Mk 1 RS the limited edition blue one they did 4500 cars of.
The ST's are not much different still have the 2.5 Turbo 5 cylinder engine but only 225bhp. I'm looking at the Mountune Kit with takes it to 260bhp for �1200.
But the new one is to much money �28,000 you can buy much nicer cars with that sort of money.
Matt
innominato5090
Mar 31, 04:27 AM
Talking about new "features": have you noticed the Fuji wallpaper is different?
The new one has clouds at the base...
can you upload that, please :)
The new one has clouds at the base...
can you upload that, please :)
jb1280
Apr 3, 06:12 AM
Very powerful ad.
puma1552
Jan 5, 09:39 PM
I am not to worried about that. I can do my own repairs, my last cars were major project cars. I have done pretty much everything (engine swaps, transmission swaps, etc.). Parts are not much more than I am used to, and since I won't be paying for labour does not really affect me.
Plus this guy seems like he really takes care of the car.
Sounds good then, but keep in mind the sheer downtime you will have, even if you do the repairs yourself.
FTR my E36 was a complete cream puff, one owner, full service records and regular maintenance--and it was the biggest piece of crap I ever had. I unloaded it needing $4500 worth of work, on top of the massive piles of money I had to throw into it over my four years.
Good luck, but you have been warned.;)
Plus this guy seems like he really takes care of the car.
Sounds good then, but keep in mind the sheer downtime you will have, even if you do the repairs yourself.
FTR my E36 was a complete cream puff, one owner, full service records and regular maintenance--and it was the biggest piece of crap I ever had. I unloaded it needing $4500 worth of work, on top of the massive piles of money I had to throw into it over my four years.
Good luck, but you have been warned.;)
rdlink
Mar 22, 09:59 PM
I have way more than 50,000 songs, and even the worst of them is more necessary than your comment.
To each his own. But come on. 497 days worth of music? That's almost a year and a half of listening to music 24 hours a day without listening to the same song twice. I think you'd have to replace the battery before then.
To each his own. But come on. 497 days worth of music? That's almost a year and a half of listening to music 24 hours a day without listening to the same song twice. I think you'd have to replace the battery before then.