DeSnousa
May 3, 06:11 PM
Welcome MacInside_Octo1 to the team.
Your stats: http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/user_summary.php?s=&u=512266
Your stats: http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/user_summary.php?s=&u=512266
katie ta achoo
Sep 18, 01:45 AM
Girls don't think it's a big deal; as long as someone isn't pushy or annoying, they don't mind if someone asks, and they find it flattering, even when they say they're not interested.
I agree. Don't be creepy, too. No heavy breathing through your teeth so it makes that creepy noise, and no Fava beans with Chianti for lunch.
:)
I agree. Don't be creepy, too. No heavy breathing through your teeth so it makes that creepy noise, and no Fava beans with Chianti for lunch.
:)
Kilamite
Oct 6, 10:18 AM
Why would Apple do what has failed all other manufactures during the time Apple's one model mantra have eaten sales from other manufactures?
So the iPod Nano and Shuffle are failures in the same context?
So the iPod Nano and Shuffle are failures in the same context?
talmy
Mar 24, 09:15 AM
Will the Lion Server allow me to keep one set of data accessible from my iMac & MBP so they are basically working with only one set of files? I don't want to migrate data from my iMac to my new MBP because between the iLife projects I don't want them living on separate machines... I simply want to close iMovie or excel for example and pick right up where I left up on the MBP once I'm upstairs! I set up file sharing and accessing the iPhoto library from the iMac takes forever to load, nevermind the loss of certain features like location tagging and I've yet to get iMovie to open the iMac library without having it crash. I know I sound like an total moron here, but the good news is when it comes to computers, I am, and I've accepted that.;)
It doesn't take Lion Server, any Mac will do, to have one set of files. But you may have a performance loss especially if you are using Wifi. With iMovie I moved the local iMovie Projects and iMovie Events folders to the server and created an alias to them on the local systems where the folders used to be. I don't use iPhoto, but if you start iPhoto holding down the option key you can specify an alternate iPhoto library location. iTunes seems to be a can of worms -- I haven't found a satisfactory solution beyond sharing the music folders. Doesn't seem to be a way to have shared playlists or even update the databases across systems. Instead I use Plex for music/video/photo sharing across systems with just the Plex server program running on the server. Doesn't seem to be any issues with other programs from Apple that I occasionally use.
It doesn't take Lion Server, any Mac will do, to have one set of files. But you may have a performance loss especially if you are using Wifi. With iMovie I moved the local iMovie Projects and iMovie Events folders to the server and created an alias to them on the local systems where the folders used to be. I don't use iPhoto, but if you start iPhoto holding down the option key you can specify an alternate iPhoto library location. iTunes seems to be a can of worms -- I haven't found a satisfactory solution beyond sharing the music folders. Doesn't seem to be a way to have shared playlists or even update the databases across systems. Instead I use Plex for music/video/photo sharing across systems with just the Plex server program running on the server. Doesn't seem to be any issues with other programs from Apple that I occasionally use.
more...
Freecity88
Jan 4, 04:08 PM
I like Garmin GPS but I have to say, this one is not comparable to the tomtom or navigon one.
zengod
Jan 6, 11:32 AM
In the UK where customers of the like of O2 (me) have more chance of getting a w##k off the Pope than a decent data signal without resorting to standing up a ladder and waving their phone in the air, this is a definate no win app.
more...
bartolo5
Jun 10, 06:23 PM
it is strange that they added a fourth band (VIII - 900 frequency) which is for more of europe, asia and also vodaNZ but doesn't open up anything in the US... even stranger is that i was just in NZ and my 3G[S] (which doesn't support VIII / 900 apparently) was on the vodaNZ 3G network the whole time. anyone with knowledge of this whole UMTS / HSDPA band and frequency thing, please tell me how this worked then?
I guess Apple added the 3G in 900Mhz to support the 3G networks in Europe. 3G in Europe has been historically in the 2100Mhz band, but that band has poor propagation (poor in building reception) so since a few years there has been some refarming going on of regular GSM bands at 900Mhz to 3G in euroland. Most 3G phones these days in Europe are 900/2100 3G so I'm assuming Apple just wanted to be competitive in Europe in terms of reception.
I guess Apple added the 3G in 900Mhz to support the 3G networks in Europe. 3G in Europe has been historically in the 2100Mhz band, but that band has poor propagation (poor in building reception) so since a few years there has been some refarming going on of regular GSM bands at 900Mhz to 3G in euroland. Most 3G phones these days in Europe are 900/2100 3G so I'm assuming Apple just wanted to be competitive in Europe in terms of reception.
arkitect
Nov 6, 09:50 AM
Everytime I see this thread I read Apple's working on an RDF iPhone� and I think to myself� and that's new? ;)
more...
henrikrox
May 6, 05:35 PM
very nice, what model do you have?
jayP1201
Jan 7, 08:15 AM
I got the new facebook update for bug fixes on syncing but not for the fact that I can't hear when I get a notification... I got no sound...
more...
blinkie
Dec 21, 04:36 AM
Not at all. As I said, I have no inclination for either Joe or RATM, or most chart music in general to be honest. I just thought the 'campaign' was pathetic, and still do.
It will be interesting to see what gets played more on the radio over the next week. I have a feeling it won't be RATM, which will indicate how pathetic and meaningless this whole 'campaign' has been. This is what I have been getting at all along. Someone will need to let me know though as I don't listen to the radio much either.
Well you're a cheery lad. I thought it's all been pretty funny.
It will be interesting to see what gets played more on the radio over the next week. I have a feeling it won't be RATM, which will indicate how pathetic and meaningless this whole 'campaign' has been. This is what I have been getting at all along. Someone will need to let me know though as I don't listen to the radio much either.
Well you're a cheery lad. I thought it's all been pretty funny.
firestarter
May 4, 12:55 AM
How do you know that that Sony prototype didn't come about as a result from work at UDC (funded by DARPA)?
I don't know. Does the US military usually sell its tech to the Japanese?
Seems to me that it's a technology lots of people are working on in parallel.
Consumer forces made flight widespread. Military forces make flight feasible. Hitler's minions didn't invent the jet engine and solid booster to deliver packages and orbit weather sensors.
Nice example. Frank Whittle (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bljetengine.htm) received the first jet engine patent in 1930. He had been in the Air Force, but they wouldn't sponsor his research - so the development was privately funded and finally demonstrated in 1937.
Intercontental flight was made widespread after we decided to work on carring warheads across the ocean vs ppl. In 1940's who woulda funded a massive manhatten project to see if we can make it heat up some water...theoretically.
I think you're confusing fission and fusion.
The need for computer networks to survive a nuclear war now enable's us to read eachother's posts and take advantage of the consumerism on top of this web page.
Darpanet, indeed. But the web itself was developed in peacetime by a man researching at a (non military) Swiss research establishment (http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/about/web-en.html).
Many technological advancements are so costly and far-fetched that no reasonable "business" would risk investing a lot of money in it. That's when paranoid governments pick up the tab. I don't think you understand that it's real easy to spend $499 on an iPod with tons of "Apps" on it and say...oh yah, this is like real easy to make because Chinese ppl take 50 cents worth of material and put it together. But before all this was possible, some of the smallest components in that iPhone and the most basic of all "Apps" took a "visionary" with a massivly risky budget to make one blink on some $5 million vaccuum box for the first time in history!
The first commercial transistors were developed for telecoms by AT&T / Texas instruments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor).
The integrated circuit was invented in peace time, and it's mass production was spurred as much by the Apollo program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit) as for defence.
Interestingly, defence and space are very conservative in their use of technology and CPUs. The increase in CPU power over time has clearly been motivated by commercial market forces (non military).
Yes, I don't deny that defence money does finance innovation. But that's not the same as implying that innovation wouldn't take place if it wasn't for War. That's clearly nonsense - there's plenty of civil and commercial market forces that also spur development, and the examples you've cited demonstrate a few. War is not an essential for human or technological development, although it may speed it along a little from time to time.
I don't know. Does the US military usually sell its tech to the Japanese?
Seems to me that it's a technology lots of people are working on in parallel.
Consumer forces made flight widespread. Military forces make flight feasible. Hitler's minions didn't invent the jet engine and solid booster to deliver packages and orbit weather sensors.
Nice example. Frank Whittle (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bljetengine.htm) received the first jet engine patent in 1930. He had been in the Air Force, but they wouldn't sponsor his research - so the development was privately funded and finally demonstrated in 1937.
Intercontental flight was made widespread after we decided to work on carring warheads across the ocean vs ppl. In 1940's who woulda funded a massive manhatten project to see if we can make it heat up some water...theoretically.
I think you're confusing fission and fusion.
The need for computer networks to survive a nuclear war now enable's us to read eachother's posts and take advantage of the consumerism on top of this web page.
Darpanet, indeed. But the web itself was developed in peacetime by a man researching at a (non military) Swiss research establishment (http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/about/web-en.html).
Many technological advancements are so costly and far-fetched that no reasonable "business" would risk investing a lot of money in it. That's when paranoid governments pick up the tab. I don't think you understand that it's real easy to spend $499 on an iPod with tons of "Apps" on it and say...oh yah, this is like real easy to make because Chinese ppl take 50 cents worth of material and put it together. But before all this was possible, some of the smallest components in that iPhone and the most basic of all "Apps" took a "visionary" with a massivly risky budget to make one blink on some $5 million vaccuum box for the first time in history!
The first commercial transistors were developed for telecoms by AT&T / Texas instruments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor).
The integrated circuit was invented in peace time, and it's mass production was spurred as much by the Apollo program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit) as for defence.
Interestingly, defence and space are very conservative in their use of technology and CPUs. The increase in CPU power over time has clearly been motivated by commercial market forces (non military).
Yes, I don't deny that defence money does finance innovation. But that's not the same as implying that innovation wouldn't take place if it wasn't for War. That's clearly nonsense - there's plenty of civil and commercial market forces that also spur development, and the examples you've cited demonstrate a few. War is not an essential for human or technological development, although it may speed it along a little from time to time.
more...
dabear
Apr 28, 02:23 PM
The only thing I'm missing on my 11" MBA is an SD card slot. I use my MBA 80% for pictures and video. I use a Wifi SD card now but away from home the SD slot would be great.
Why don't you enable internet sharing on your mac instead? You don't need to be actually connected to the internet if you only wanna gain access to your computer.
Why don't you enable internet sharing on your mac instead? You don't need to be actually connected to the internet if you only wanna gain access to your computer.
nedz06
Mar 28, 08:48 AM
I think iOS 5 will really be something:)http://bestcasinogamingonline.com/crunk/35/543.jpg
we hope so. ;)
we hope so. ;)
more...
nomik2
Apr 19, 10:09 AM
2nd video at 1:35 (iOS 4.0 8A216) confirmed http://twitpic.com/4mtg8k
That would make this build older than the released iOS 4.0 (8A293)
That would make this build older than the released iOS 4.0 (8A293)
ten-oak-druid
Mar 24, 07:15 PM
A $300 ipad is perfect for the person willing to buy a $300 Dell computer. Apple should keep ipad 1 around at the reduced price to corner the low end tablet market. Perhaps a year from now Apple could sell ipad 1 for as low as $200?
This is a real surprising trend for Apple products, I cannot recall such deep discounts on the "old" model of anything in the past. I have an iPad1 and was planning to sell it and get an iPad2. But the "value" of both just when south by 40% to 50%.
What I mean is - I can't be the only one thinking if I wait until the iPad3 comes along I'll be able to grab an iPad2 for 40% off.
I have to wonder what Apple is planning to prevent this from happening next year?
I'd keep the old one. It is a quality photo frame if nothing else. Put it on a table in the living room and have it for guests to use.
This is a real surprising trend for Apple products, I cannot recall such deep discounts on the "old" model of anything in the past. I have an iPad1 and was planning to sell it and get an iPad2. But the "value" of both just when south by 40% to 50%.
What I mean is - I can't be the only one thinking if I wait until the iPad3 comes along I'll be able to grab an iPad2 for 40% off.
I have to wonder what Apple is planning to prevent this from happening next year?
I'd keep the old one. It is a quality photo frame if nothing else. Put it on a table in the living room and have it for guests to use.
more...
bretm
Oct 10, 12:13 PM
My understanding was different. I take it that they are taking the same stance that Wal-Mart is, and that is that if the movie industry allows iTunes to sell movies, they will make the record companies pay for it (in a negative way). The retailers aren't ready to take on iTunes and the online market, so they are going to use their power to stall the transition to digital downloads as long as they possibly can.
What Target is doing is anti Apple, and more importantly, anti the progression of technology and lifestyle.
Yep. It's simply an attempt to buy some time. They know they can't fight it in the end.
What Target is doing is anti Apple, and more importantly, anti the progression of technology and lifestyle.
Yep. It's simply an attempt to buy some time. They know they can't fight it in the end.
BC2009
Apr 12, 04:55 PM
Right now in NYC you can walk in the Apple store anytime and get the Verizon iPad. ATT models are extremely hard to find.
So how is it that Verizon is preferred???... (I know why but I'll let you guess...:))
I wonder why everywhere I go ATT is sold out...
I was lucky enough to buy 16GB ATT this morning. :D
The survey is flawed if it's estimating US sales by polling only US buyers.
The survey is not a good indicator of initial US sales. Since the AT&T models are being snatched up and shipped overseas. The survey is asking US purchases which version they prefer. However, US citizens are not the only ones buying iPad 2 from Apple in the US. If the survey is accurate then over time (i.e.: as international iPad 2 availability increases) then the Verizon model should catch up to AT&T in the US and possibly pass it in sales.
I still prefer the nation's fastest network (AT&T) over the most reliable (VZW) any day. Not to mention my GSM 32GB iPad 1 can be used internationally as well. Besides, in my neck of the woods, AT&T service has been very reliable for data consumption. No complaints here.
I owned the AT&T iPad 1 and I am somebody who only buys the data plan when I am traveling for vacation or for work. In my home town, AT&T is awesome -- they have great coverage. However, last year when traveling I found that AT&T coverage was not so good. In Idaho and Utah I had terrible coverage, in New York City I had "four bars" but it was still dog slow (this is before their NYC upgrades), and in Southern California it was hit or miss. So I bought the Verizon iPad 2 64GB with the intention of sticking with AT&T for my next iPhone. That way if I get somewhere and my phone shows great AT&T coverage then I can go with the WiFi hotspot option. However, if the AT&T coverage is lacking at my destination then I can activate the Verizon plan on the iPad 2. Should give me the best of both worlds. Here's hoping AT&T gets their LTE network up and running sooner rather than later though.
So how is it that Verizon is preferred???... (I know why but I'll let you guess...:))
I wonder why everywhere I go ATT is sold out...
I was lucky enough to buy 16GB ATT this morning. :D
The survey is flawed if it's estimating US sales by polling only US buyers.
The survey is not a good indicator of initial US sales. Since the AT&T models are being snatched up and shipped overseas. The survey is asking US purchases which version they prefer. However, US citizens are not the only ones buying iPad 2 from Apple in the US. If the survey is accurate then over time (i.e.: as international iPad 2 availability increases) then the Verizon model should catch up to AT&T in the US and possibly pass it in sales.
I still prefer the nation's fastest network (AT&T) over the most reliable (VZW) any day. Not to mention my GSM 32GB iPad 1 can be used internationally as well. Besides, in my neck of the woods, AT&T service has been very reliable for data consumption. No complaints here.
I owned the AT&T iPad 1 and I am somebody who only buys the data plan when I am traveling for vacation or for work. In my home town, AT&T is awesome -- they have great coverage. However, last year when traveling I found that AT&T coverage was not so good. In Idaho and Utah I had terrible coverage, in New York City I had "four bars" but it was still dog slow (this is before their NYC upgrades), and in Southern California it was hit or miss. So I bought the Verizon iPad 2 64GB with the intention of sticking with AT&T for my next iPhone. That way if I get somewhere and my phone shows great AT&T coverage then I can go with the WiFi hotspot option. However, if the AT&T coverage is lacking at my destination then I can activate the Verizon plan on the iPad 2. Should give me the best of both worlds. Here's hoping AT&T gets their LTE network up and running sooner rather than later though.
generik
Sep 27, 09:02 AM
Probably out next Tuesday!
soulreaver99
Mar 16, 11:43 PM
Sucks to be in California!!!
iNeko
Mar 25, 05:59 AM
Waiting excitedly for mine to arrive :)
Curse the parcel deliveries to come later than the regular post!
Curse the parcel deliveries to come later than the regular post!
calsci
May 2, 09:28 PM
This is so cool
-hh
Mar 21, 09:24 PM
Its funny that film and film cameras were so difficult to get right, but there was almost no post-processing. Now we shoot computers with lenses attached, get great technical results, yet post-process our photos to death.
Actually, for many people there was quite a bit of post-processing, but it was hidden from them: it was the hand-inspected print from ye olde local camera store, which would dial in what they believed were the appropriate corrections.
I do still suck.
My problem is leaving my camera on Auto. I just don't know which setting to use. The more I read and the more opinions I see, the more confused I get. Plus when I see a good subject I don't want to mess it up with my ill informed selections...
I did just buy the Bryan Peterson Understanding Exposure book, so hopefully that will help set me off in the right direction!
I agree with most of what you say, except.... I don't get the "Shoot only Full Manual" advice that is heard here and in other places.
If I have spent some $$ on a camera with a computer and a light meter, I figure I'm going to make it do at some of the work. The way I see it, I have a management job, and that is to decide what DoF and/or apparent motion I want to capture (composition) - and to ensure good exposure (quality control). The camera gets to do the grunt work of doing the calculations. It's the back-office.
Thanks for saying this.
I think that there's really two different aspects to this that both require appreciation.
The first is that having the personal knowledge of the variables that go into a proper exposure is a good thing...as well as more factors such as the trade-off of DOF versus Shutter, etc...this is most easily learned by inflicting the "pain" of full manual upon the student.
(like that contradiction? "Pain is Easy" :-)
However, once one knows the ropes ... and what is important - - including when it is/isn't important - - why not let the machine do the settings for a 'nominal' exposure? Afterall, that's what it is good at, and you can concentrate on more important stuff - - such as composition.
At the same time, knowing when to be ... unafraid ... of using the various camera settings is still a very good thing. For example, I revisited this just the other night while outside to shoot some 'big moon' photos:
I did a quick setup and did some shots to find that the auto exposure was totally blown out. Did the "quick cheat" to spin the one dial to override to -2 stops ... still too bright. Figured out that this was probably because I had forgotten to set the camera over to spot metering before going out in the dark...and in the dark, couldn't find that control. So instead of stumbling in the dark blind, I just spun it over to Manual and readjusted, recalling reading somewhere that the old "Sunny 16" rule (I had forgotten the "Moony 11" derivative) also applies to bright exposures of the full Moon to get an idea of just how many stops I was still over-exposing things. I didn't remember the correct rule of thumb, but with digital that doesn't matter as much: it got me quite close in just a few shots; the shot I liked best ended up at 1/320sec for a 280mm shot at f/4.9 / ISO 100...a bit more light-gathering than the correct rule, but more importantly, it was a full 7 stops lower than where the camera default settings were, and I got the whole shebang done in <2 minutes.
...which meant that I was able to get quickly back inside, before my wife was able to yell at me for being outside in the cold without any jacket.
-hh
Actually, for many people there was quite a bit of post-processing, but it was hidden from them: it was the hand-inspected print from ye olde local camera store, which would dial in what they believed were the appropriate corrections.
I do still suck.
My problem is leaving my camera on Auto. I just don't know which setting to use. The more I read and the more opinions I see, the more confused I get. Plus when I see a good subject I don't want to mess it up with my ill informed selections...
I did just buy the Bryan Peterson Understanding Exposure book, so hopefully that will help set me off in the right direction!
I agree with most of what you say, except.... I don't get the "Shoot only Full Manual" advice that is heard here and in other places.
If I have spent some $$ on a camera with a computer and a light meter, I figure I'm going to make it do at some of the work. The way I see it, I have a management job, and that is to decide what DoF and/or apparent motion I want to capture (composition) - and to ensure good exposure (quality control). The camera gets to do the grunt work of doing the calculations. It's the back-office.
Thanks for saying this.
I think that there's really two different aspects to this that both require appreciation.
The first is that having the personal knowledge of the variables that go into a proper exposure is a good thing...as well as more factors such as the trade-off of DOF versus Shutter, etc...this is most easily learned by inflicting the "pain" of full manual upon the student.
(like that contradiction? "Pain is Easy" :-)
However, once one knows the ropes ... and what is important - - including when it is/isn't important - - why not let the machine do the settings for a 'nominal' exposure? Afterall, that's what it is good at, and you can concentrate on more important stuff - - such as composition.
At the same time, knowing when to be ... unafraid ... of using the various camera settings is still a very good thing. For example, I revisited this just the other night while outside to shoot some 'big moon' photos:
I did a quick setup and did some shots to find that the auto exposure was totally blown out. Did the "quick cheat" to spin the one dial to override to -2 stops ... still too bright. Figured out that this was probably because I had forgotten to set the camera over to spot metering before going out in the dark...and in the dark, couldn't find that control. So instead of stumbling in the dark blind, I just spun it over to Manual and readjusted, recalling reading somewhere that the old "Sunny 16" rule (I had forgotten the "Moony 11" derivative) also applies to bright exposures of the full Moon to get an idea of just how many stops I was still over-exposing things. I didn't remember the correct rule of thumb, but with digital that doesn't matter as much: it got me quite close in just a few shots; the shot I liked best ended up at 1/320sec for a 280mm shot at f/4.9 / ISO 100...a bit more light-gathering than the correct rule, but more importantly, it was a full 7 stops lower than where the camera default settings were, and I got the whole shebang done in <2 minutes.
...which meant that I was able to get quickly back inside, before my wife was able to yell at me for being outside in the cold without any jacket.
-hh
paulvee
Sep 19, 10:02 PM
I unplugged everything and that made it work.
Network Cable
USB devices (3)
Firewire400 (1)
Firewire800 (1)
I didn't think to unplug them one at a time to control for where the problem was. Oh well. If your drives comes out and snaps back in right away without updating the firmware. Remove all devices before rebooting.
Same here. It would not work till I removed stuff. If I had time, I would have done it methodically, to save time for others, but I'm super busy. Got the tone and the in/out disk tray, then no update until I removed the two USB cords, the FW 800, FW400 cords, replaced the FCP keyboard and Logitech mouse with the stock ones and, for good measure after it shut down, the network cable.
Then it worked fine.
Plugged in the network cable for the second update and it worked with that.
Network Cable
USB devices (3)
Firewire400 (1)
Firewire800 (1)
I didn't think to unplug them one at a time to control for where the problem was. Oh well. If your drives comes out and snaps back in right away without updating the firmware. Remove all devices before rebooting.
Same here. It would not work till I removed stuff. If I had time, I would have done it methodically, to save time for others, but I'm super busy. Got the tone and the in/out disk tray, then no update until I removed the two USB cords, the FW 800, FW400 cords, replaced the FCP keyboard and Logitech mouse with the stock ones and, for good measure after it shut down, the network cable.
Then it worked fine.
Plugged in the network cable for the second update and it worked with that.
No comments:
Post a Comment