big
Sep 14, 09:33 AM
bravo bullrat
chadua
Mar 13, 01:06 PM
Somewhat related. I have AT&T and two summers ago drove across the country. When I went from EST to Central time the clock went back one hour like it was supposed to, but when I crossed into mountain time AT&T switched my phone back to Eastern time. I had to manually set it to the correct time, until we got to the pacific time zone where it started working again.
mcguin2000
Oct 19, 11:51 AM
I'll be there. Are they closing beofre 6 and re-opening? Do you think there will be a queue.
A fortnight of dreams. Leopard the iPhone!
A fortnight of dreams. Leopard the iPhone!
bimmerkid
Oct 27, 06:02 PM
It feels a little bit like Microsoft Exchange minus the configurable email accounts via the server.
more...
iDisk
Mar 30, 04:47 PM
This couldn't come soon enough. I was expecting this update 7/12/2010
Thunderhawks
Apr 19, 03:08 PM
LOL! Do you realize how silly you sound with these comments?
LOL 2, not only that. He knows something 108 million iphone users (Just learned) haven't figured out yet.
What a brainiac:-)
LOL 2, not only that. He knows something 108 million iphone users (Just learned) haven't figured out yet.
What a brainiac:-)
more...
Lord Blackadder
Mar 15, 08:25 PM
An increasing number of complete and utter fruitloops seem to have "Made in the USA" stamped on their foreheads these days.
All the more reason for the US to get into the export business. ;)
All the more reason for the US to get into the export business. ;)
qap
May 6, 01:43 PM
So im wondering while i wait for my new imac what your idle/load temps are
Would be super if you wrote which imac you have aswell.
Wondering how much the 95w * cpu does to the temp in the imac.
Would love to hear idle/load gpu temps aswell :)
* 95Watts are only for the i5 3.1GHz and i7 3.4Ghz, i5 2.7 is rated 65W :o Anyway I'm curious too :D
Would be super if you wrote which imac you have aswell.
Wondering how much the 95w * cpu does to the temp in the imac.
Would love to hear idle/load gpu temps aswell :)
* 95Watts are only for the i5 3.1GHz and i7 3.4Ghz, i5 2.7 is rated 65W :o Anyway I'm curious too :D
more...
eawmp1
May 2, 11:11 AM
New day, same old issues.
In speeches, less emphasis on Bin Laden, and more focus on "evil-doers" in general.
In speeches, less emphasis on Bin Laden, and more focus on "evil-doers" in general.
stosh06611
Mar 24, 04:38 PM
Just picked one up in Norwalk CT - they had plenty in stock and the sales person didn't realize the markdown until I mentioned it. Great deal. They tried to sell me a ton of services, but you don't have to... $317 out the door.:)
more...
glassbathroom
Sep 20, 05:17 AM
Strange question: can you use the Firmware Restoration CD to update your firmware? This disc is designed to fix a bad update from CD, bypassing the hard disk and the RAID array. Seems to me that it should work, in theory.
Read all about it here (http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/firmwarerestorationcd11.html). New version released today for the latest Mac Pro firmware.
I tried this with my RAID0 Mac Pro and it doesn't work I am afraid. I can't get it to update when you hold down the power button. I really think that Apple have to address this problem. RAID0 is not going to be very unusual with the new Mac Pros.
Read all about it here (http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/firmwarerestorationcd11.html). New version released today for the latest Mac Pro firmware.
I tried this with my RAID0 Mac Pro and it doesn't work I am afraid. I can't get it to update when you hold down the power button. I really think that Apple have to address this problem. RAID0 is not going to be very unusual with the new Mac Pros.
Gasu E.
Nov 14, 08:43 AM
"Mummy, why is that man watching those naked people doing things to each other." :p
more...
areas have been treated.
Invisible Things Photoshop
more...
Re: Invisible Things Photoshop
Fire and Photoshop
more...
Incredible Photos Made Without
Incredible Photos Made Without
even just a little bit. Now you’re equipped with the knowledge of creating a nice snow.
more...
Small White Car
Mar 26, 03:38 PM
Honestly, Macrumors, because of all the talk of a Apple-Google war, THIS story is more worthy of page 1 status than a story about executives selling stock (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/03/26/apple-executives-cash-in-over-1-million-shares-of-apple-stock/) OR the story that uses the word 'Unsurprisingly' (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/03/26/ipad-unsurprisingly-registering-most-popular-with-affluent-young-adults-already-owning-apple-products/) right in the headline.
Everything's flip-flopped today!
Everything's flip-flopped today!
thatisme
Mar 29, 10:09 AM
QUOTE=flosseR: Thatisme, please read this, and read it CAREFULLY...�
These are the complete comments to all your relevant posts:
"To the previous post about focal lengths, the difference in perceived focal length comes into account when you factor in the 1.6 cropped sensor. Since the sensor is physically smaller than a Full Frame or 1.3 crop sensor, it is essentially taking the image from the center portion of the lens.
So, you WILL get different focal lengths from 2 identically marked lenses where one is an EF-S lens and the other is an EF lens."
--INCORRECT on the same body you will get the EXACT same image. Show me images with EXIF data in tact, and no cropping done in post
"Nikon also created a FULL FRame camera a while back that also had the ability to create a "cropped" image to increase it's rate of capture to achieve results in FPS that were similar to canon's 1D series bodies. Effectively if it captured less pixels per image, it could do so faster."
-- ALL Nikon Cameras can use ALL Nikon made lenses. And no, that wasn't the main reason to do that. Never made any mention of Nikon mounts not working on all bodies. And please do enlighten everyone here what the purpose of "high-speed crop" is on that Nikon body...
"YOU WILL GET DIFFERENT IMAGES IF YOU USE A 200mm EF Lens on a 7D (APS-C) and a 200mm EF-S lens on that same camera due to the FOVCF. on the EF lens, the 200mm assumes you are using the ENTIRE image circle of the lens, which you are not. You ARE using the ENTIRE image circle on the EF-S lens, which is a True 200mm for that camera. You have to use the ENTIRE image circle to get a true measure of the focal length. when you use only a portion of that image circle, you have to apply the FOVCF to get the EFFECTIVE focal length."
-- This is pulled out of you mind because it does not make sense at ALL and is so incorrect it's not even funny.. the lens is NOT adjusted to the focal length.. the length is the same.. the EFFECTIVE focal length (or Field of VIEW) comes from the sensor.. NOT the lens!!! Yep. I made that point a number of times already. The Actual Focal length (the mm) doesn't change.
"ok. this is getting comical.
From your post, blasting me....
A canon 55-200 EF-s and a 70-200L lens at 200mm on a canon 7D will produce the exact same image...the same as if you would mount both lenses on a full frame body and crop the image by 1.6"
-- NO YOU WONT!!! what are you? a troll that needs feeding??
I compared BOTH lenses mounted on a 7d to BOTH lenses mounted on a 5d� if you crop the BOTH images from a 5d you have the same as BOTH from a 7d.. DONT #$@$$ CROP!!!!!!!!!!
If you take BOTH shots from a 7d .. they are the SAME.. and they are the same if you shoot them both on a 5d..
GET
IT
IN
YOUR
BRAIN!
THE SENSOR MATTERS!!! NOT THE LENS.. EXACTLY. NEVER SAID IT DIFFERENTLY. THE 1.6 IS FROM THE CAMERA SENSOR, NOT THE LENS. NEVER DID I STATE THAT DIFFERENTLY
geezz�. END QUOTE
These are the complete comments to all your relevant posts:
"To the previous post about focal lengths, the difference in perceived focal length comes into account when you factor in the 1.6 cropped sensor. Since the sensor is physically smaller than a Full Frame or 1.3 crop sensor, it is essentially taking the image from the center portion of the lens.
So, you WILL get different focal lengths from 2 identically marked lenses where one is an EF-S lens and the other is an EF lens."
--INCORRECT on the same body you will get the EXACT same image. Show me images with EXIF data in tact, and no cropping done in post
"Nikon also created a FULL FRame camera a while back that also had the ability to create a "cropped" image to increase it's rate of capture to achieve results in FPS that were similar to canon's 1D series bodies. Effectively if it captured less pixels per image, it could do so faster."
-- ALL Nikon Cameras can use ALL Nikon made lenses. And no, that wasn't the main reason to do that. Never made any mention of Nikon mounts not working on all bodies. And please do enlighten everyone here what the purpose of "high-speed crop" is on that Nikon body...
"YOU WILL GET DIFFERENT IMAGES IF YOU USE A 200mm EF Lens on a 7D (APS-C) and a 200mm EF-S lens on that same camera due to the FOVCF. on the EF lens, the 200mm assumes you are using the ENTIRE image circle of the lens, which you are not. You ARE using the ENTIRE image circle on the EF-S lens, which is a True 200mm for that camera. You have to use the ENTIRE image circle to get a true measure of the focal length. when you use only a portion of that image circle, you have to apply the FOVCF to get the EFFECTIVE focal length."
-- This is pulled out of you mind because it does not make sense at ALL and is so incorrect it's not even funny.. the lens is NOT adjusted to the focal length.. the length is the same.. the EFFECTIVE focal length (or Field of VIEW) comes from the sensor.. NOT the lens!!! Yep. I made that point a number of times already. The Actual Focal length (the mm) doesn't change.
"ok. this is getting comical.
From your post, blasting me....
A canon 55-200 EF-s and a 70-200L lens at 200mm on a canon 7D will produce the exact same image...the same as if you would mount both lenses on a full frame body and crop the image by 1.6"
-- NO YOU WONT!!! what are you? a troll that needs feeding??
I compared BOTH lenses mounted on a 7d to BOTH lenses mounted on a 5d� if you crop the BOTH images from a 5d you have the same as BOTH from a 7d.. DONT #$@$$ CROP!!!!!!!!!!
If you take BOTH shots from a 7d .. they are the SAME.. and they are the same if you shoot them both on a 5d..
GET
IT
IN
YOUR
BRAIN!
THE SENSOR MATTERS!!! NOT THE LENS.. EXACTLY. NEVER SAID IT DIFFERENTLY. THE 1.6 IS FROM THE CAMERA SENSOR, NOT THE LENS. NEVER DID I STATE THAT DIFFERENTLY
geezz�. END QUOTE
more...
Eidorian
Jun 17, 07:56 PM
I mean your attempted joke about a newer version coming out by Christmas was a poor effort, and that further attempts could be better.What joke?
The older models aren't being produced anymore.
The older models aren't being produced anymore.
MacRumors
Nov 21, 04:01 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
The president and CEO of Eneco, a "development stage company" that claims to have developed a small chip that can convert heat into electricity, claims that he is in talks with both Apple and Dell regarding his company's technology.
First reported on an IT Week blog "Green Business News" (http://green.itweek.co.uk/2006/11/eneco_details_r.html), Eneco claims that their chips can produce electricity from heat at up to 30% efficiency.
The company says it is already in talks with both Dell and Apple about how the chips could be used in their devices. Initial talks have focused on integrating the heat conversion chips into the device so it can harness the heat generated by processors and turn it into electricity to power fans or other cooling technologies. By harnessing this power the devices, be they initially laptops and handhelds, or later even servers and PCs, should see improved energy efficiency, extended battery life and enhanced performance.
There are issues with the chip, as are to be expected from a development-stage product based on a new technology. At the present time, Eneco hopes to begin production late next year or early 2008.
The president and CEO of Eneco, a "development stage company" that claims to have developed a small chip that can convert heat into electricity, claims that he is in talks with both Apple and Dell regarding his company's technology.
First reported on an IT Week blog "Green Business News" (http://green.itweek.co.uk/2006/11/eneco_details_r.html), Eneco claims that their chips can produce electricity from heat at up to 30% efficiency.
The company says it is already in talks with both Dell and Apple about how the chips could be used in their devices. Initial talks have focused on integrating the heat conversion chips into the device so it can harness the heat generated by processors and turn it into electricity to power fans or other cooling technologies. By harnessing this power the devices, be they initially laptops and handhelds, or later even servers and PCs, should see improved energy efficiency, extended battery life and enhanced performance.
There are issues with the chip, as are to be expected from a development-stage product based on a new technology. At the present time, Eneco hopes to begin production late next year or early 2008.
more...
Old Muley
May 5, 11:06 AM
Move along citizens, nothing new to see here...
stukick
Apr 12, 04:38 PM
The cheapest price is free off of The Pirate Bay. If you're unethical.
Be careful. Usually any software updates render it useless. And re-installing it won't help either. Turn auto update off.
Be careful. Usually any software updates render it useless. And re-installing it won't help either. Turn auto update off.
reden
Apr 14, 02:30 PM
Page 2?
This site needs a new section!
MacRumors: From Apple Human Resources
This site needs a new section!
MacRumors: From Apple Human Resources
Sydde
Apr 4, 01:59 PM
The Laffer Curve is often referenced, but you're correct about it's actual meaning. Some conservatives have taken the Curve to mean that lowering taxes will always bring about more revenue. Something this article is trying to address.
Thing about the Laffer curve is that there was/is no research or data to back it up. Arthur Laffer pulled it out of a dark place and scribbled it down on a cocktail napkin. Its actual shape may have no actual correlation to the smooth bell we always see, it is all fiction because no one has tried to demonstrate its validity or accuracy.
In the short-term, lowering taxes just takes money from the state purse and does not drive new economic development. In the mid-term and long-term, lower taxes may encourage growth, but there's not a direct connection between taxation and economic development.
I believe I have seen it suggested somewhere that raising taxes puts pressure on business, which may have the effect of stimulating growth by forcing the businesses to make up the lost revenue (ramping up). What effect government policy has on the economy is not clear because the economy is made up of a mass of Brownian particles that move in unpredictable and befuddling ways. And the factors that affect macroeconomics are themselves in constant flux, so the thing that (seemed to) work last time could have a disastrous impact next time around.
But the issue that troubles me is growth. The health of the economy is always measured by the GDP growth rate: the higher the better. That seems like folly, and history seems to support that. The more vodka, the worse the hangover. The faster you drive, the worse the crash. But even that analogy fails, because economic growth is a multi-faceted sum that can look good but not actually be reflecting positive change if the gains are not in areas that lead to ongoing stability and progress.
Thing about the Laffer curve is that there was/is no research or data to back it up. Arthur Laffer pulled it out of a dark place and scribbled it down on a cocktail napkin. Its actual shape may have no actual correlation to the smooth bell we always see, it is all fiction because no one has tried to demonstrate its validity or accuracy.
In the short-term, lowering taxes just takes money from the state purse and does not drive new economic development. In the mid-term and long-term, lower taxes may encourage growth, but there's not a direct connection between taxation and economic development.
I believe I have seen it suggested somewhere that raising taxes puts pressure on business, which may have the effect of stimulating growth by forcing the businesses to make up the lost revenue (ramping up). What effect government policy has on the economy is not clear because the economy is made up of a mass of Brownian particles that move in unpredictable and befuddling ways. And the factors that affect macroeconomics are themselves in constant flux, so the thing that (seemed to) work last time could have a disastrous impact next time around.
But the issue that troubles me is growth. The health of the economy is always measured by the GDP growth rate: the higher the better. That seems like folly, and history seems to support that. The more vodka, the worse the hangover. The faster you drive, the worse the crash. But even that analogy fails, because economic growth is a multi-faceted sum that can look good but not actually be reflecting positive change if the gains are not in areas that lead to ongoing stability and progress.
hulugu
May 2, 12:50 PM
No major changes. Some new wacko will step up and fill the fresh void.
That being said, it is a HUGE moral victory for us and our troops.
I'm not so sure that the void can be filled. Osama Bin Laden had become a figurehead, split away from his funding and logistical support, and existed as a symbol.
A new leader would have to fulfill that same roll, but Al Qaeda's money trail has been cut to ribbons, their logistical support is broken, and the organization's ability to recruit may be blunted by the 'Arab Spring.'
The Taliban, however, will keep on rolling, but they have always operated as a separate group, although their operational structures were intertwined.
Remember that Al Qaeda has been 'franchising' itself since before 9/11, so expect to see clones popping up in Africa and the Mid East that claim the same lineage, with leaders who will claim to be the next Osama Bin Laden.
However, that moment has passed.
That being said, it is a HUGE moral victory for us and our troops.
I'm not so sure that the void can be filled. Osama Bin Laden had become a figurehead, split away from his funding and logistical support, and existed as a symbol.
A new leader would have to fulfill that same roll, but Al Qaeda's money trail has been cut to ribbons, their logistical support is broken, and the organization's ability to recruit may be blunted by the 'Arab Spring.'
The Taliban, however, will keep on rolling, but they have always operated as a separate group, although their operational structures were intertwined.
Remember that Al Qaeda has been 'franchising' itself since before 9/11, so expect to see clones popping up in Africa and the Mid East that claim the same lineage, with leaders who will claim to be the next Osama Bin Laden.
However, that moment has passed.
brasscat
Mar 12, 08:13 AM
I was maybe 300 in a line of 500+ at Willow Bend Mall. Waited 5 hours, got to spot 50 from the door, and they ran out.
The sad thing was the lack of information being provided by Apple to us waiting in line. There were maybe 150 in line still when they clearly ran out. The line sat unmoving for about 45 minutes when news was finally announced that they ran out. I don't understand why they had us stand there for 45 minutes to tell us they were sold out?
During past launches, Apple passed out free water, or took inventory counts against the people waiting in line. This time nothing from Apple but a bunch of Apple employees that had no idea how much inventory they had until they were all out.
I don't know why they didn't allow pre-reservations, either, this time around.
So this launch, in my opinion, was a little wild and disorganized compared to launches of days past.
The sad thing was the lack of information being provided by Apple to us waiting in line. There were maybe 150 in line still when they clearly ran out. The line sat unmoving for about 45 minutes when news was finally announced that they ran out. I don't understand why they had us stand there for 45 minutes to tell us they were sold out?
During past launches, Apple passed out free water, or took inventory counts against the people waiting in line. This time nothing from Apple but a bunch of Apple employees that had no idea how much inventory they had until they were all out.
I don't know why they didn't allow pre-reservations, either, this time around.
So this launch, in my opinion, was a little wild and disorganized compared to launches of days past.
Tailpike1153
Mar 28, 08:53 AM
I can't think of any good rumors to start spreading. Lion, iOS 4+/5, new iPhones, MobileMe cloud. Hmmmm.... what to make up? The iPhone is heading to Sprint and Cricket. j/k. I'm just hoping to be able to get a new iPhone this summer. New iMac & iPad 2 will be pluses on the year.
Gasu E.
Mar 25, 09:20 AM
i bet they had people there with MBA's from good schools running financial what if's and telling management to avoid digital because they will make less money due to not selling the film or anything other than the camera
They did not avoid digital at all, in fact they were an early entrant to digital. The problem was that they were used to having a lucrative near-monopoly in film, a fat side business in film processing and a nice low-end camera business built around proprietary "connvenience" film packaging. They were now facing aggressive consumer electronics companies who were used to relently feature upgrades and short model lifecycles. Moreover, they could not rely on their film dominance to keep competitors at a disadvantage. In other words, they had to change their business model completely-- from near monopoly to completely competitive-- in order to success in the new business. Only a fraction of companies manage to do this successfully.
Keep in mind, also, due to the increased competition and lack of a film component, that the opportunity for Kodak in digital was much smaller than their film and related businesses. It's very hard to manage a shrinking company, and even harder if you are also trying to reinvent yourself.
They did not avoid digital at all, in fact they were an early entrant to digital. The problem was that they were used to having a lucrative near-monopoly in film, a fat side business in film processing and a nice low-end camera business built around proprietary "connvenience" film packaging. They were now facing aggressive consumer electronics companies who were used to relently feature upgrades and short model lifecycles. Moreover, they could not rely on their film dominance to keep competitors at a disadvantage. In other words, they had to change their business model completely-- from near monopoly to completely competitive-- in order to success in the new business. Only a fraction of companies manage to do this successfully.
Keep in mind, also, due to the increased competition and lack of a film component, that the opportunity for Kodak in digital was much smaller than their film and related businesses. It's very hard to manage a shrinking company, and even harder if you are also trying to reinvent yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment