rdowns
Apr 7, 04:26 PM
The whole thing is pathetic. From the Democrats inability to pass a 2010 budget, to the Republican obstruction and the Tea Party wackos who have co-opted the party who don't understand the concept of compromise. History will be very unkind to late 20th -early 21st century America.
RaZaK
Mar 27, 02:35 PM
Nice dude, you really had to go there right? A good'ol racist comment.
how was the statement racist?
how was the statement racist?
MacSA
Sep 25, 10:12 AM
Did they really need a media event for such a small update?
Abulia
Sep 27, 10:48 AM
Dooooooooooooooommmmmmm!!!!!
:eek: :eek: :eek:
:eek: :eek: :eek:
more...
longball11
May 24, 04:35 PM
Does starcraft 2 work with the new macbook pro 15'' graphic card?
JPyre
Apr 12, 04:46 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Well people prefer to buy AT&T right now, hence out of stock and goin for much more on ebay, soo the stats are wrong...
They obviously polled people in non-AT&T markets, who live in the mid-west, who wouldn't buy one anyway.
Well people prefer to buy AT&T right now, hence out of stock and goin for much more on ebay, soo the stats are wrong...
They obviously polled people in non-AT&T markets, who live in the mid-west, who wouldn't buy one anyway.
more...
parenthesis
Oct 26, 03:36 PM
I loved Cool Edit back in the day (when it wasn't an Adobe property). I might have to check this out.
brucem91
May 3, 10:13 AM
I have the same problem.. it might be. may it be that mac version is not available if submitted computer stats are of a pc?That can't be it, because I gave mac specs, and had an option to download the pc or mac version. I think I remember reading something about the mac beta being only for america, though i could be mistaken.
more...
2992
Aug 19, 11:47 AM
cannot log into the new version. Restored the previous one which works. Really weird...:o
emt1
Aug 19, 10:36 PM
The amount of stupidity in this thread is mind-blowing. Don't want people to know where you are? Don't check in. It's so simple.
more...
Full of Win
Mar 28, 09:29 AM
From the graphic announment it is pretty clear what OS is now the focus of ACE (Apple Consumer Eletronics).
ACE should drop all pretense and rename WWiOSDC:mad:
ACE should drop all pretense and rename WWiOSDC:mad:
Digital Skunk
Feb 27, 04:33 PM
Let's say that the desktop and the server editions are DIFFERENT software. Ubuntu is a desktop OS with a full graphical user interface and Ubuntu Server is a full server platform WITHOUT ANY graphical user interface. Repeat: no GUI at all, leave your mouse at home, you won't be needing it. Instead, Ubuntu Server comes with options to be installed as a cloud server, a LAMP stack or for other typical server-only tasks like file and print or database or directory services.
But you are right that both Ubuntu versions use the same repositories and that with sufficient work one can eventually do what the other does or be configured to become the other edition; they are just pre-packaged for completely different uses.
While on the other hand, the OS X client before Lion could never become a full OS X server, at least not when you wanted to replicate or use Apple's proprietary server software and tools on the desktop version of the OS.
When I first read about, I still thought that they would be releasing another version of OS X server. But then I visited Apple's website and their wording didn't leave much room for interpretation: Yes, whatever server features Apple wants to save are now becoming a part of the standard package of OS X Lion. There won't be a separate server edition anymore.
And it makes sense. They buried their server business, so they don't need to develop, market, ship and support a separate server OS anymore.
This all goes along with some of the speculation in my neck of the woods. Apple may have just setup the Mac Pro server option as a temporary fix for those needing a dedicated server that wasn't a mini . . . since they murdered the Xserve.
There's no way anyone in the market for an Xserve will want to stick a Mac Pro in their racks, and a Mini just won't cut it power wise.
Putting the features that SoHo users want in a server in the desktop client will just push the desktop version further up the "what a deal" ladder and leave the Mac server business buried forever.
But you are right that both Ubuntu versions use the same repositories and that with sufficient work one can eventually do what the other does or be configured to become the other edition; they are just pre-packaged for completely different uses.
While on the other hand, the OS X client before Lion could never become a full OS X server, at least not when you wanted to replicate or use Apple's proprietary server software and tools on the desktop version of the OS.
When I first read about, I still thought that they would be releasing another version of OS X server. But then I visited Apple's website and their wording didn't leave much room for interpretation: Yes, whatever server features Apple wants to save are now becoming a part of the standard package of OS X Lion. There won't be a separate server edition anymore.
And it makes sense. They buried their server business, so they don't need to develop, market, ship and support a separate server OS anymore.
This all goes along with some of the speculation in my neck of the woods. Apple may have just setup the Mac Pro server option as a temporary fix for those needing a dedicated server that wasn't a mini . . . since they murdered the Xserve.
There's no way anyone in the market for an Xserve will want to stick a Mac Pro in their racks, and a Mini just won't cut it power wise.
Putting the features that SoHo users want in a server in the desktop client will just push the desktop version further up the "what a deal" ladder and leave the Mac server business buried forever.
more...
weldon
Apr 3, 02:45 PM
What I see Pages as trying to do (again) is to define a new category.
selena gomez hair short and
more...
selena gomez long hair. for
selena gomez hair long
more...
selena gomez hair long straight. hair long straight. selena; hair long straight. selena. m3digi. Apr 18, 12:17 AM
Selena Gomez Hair 2011.
selena gomez blond hair
diamond.g
Apr 21, 12:54 PM
If the hardware isn't that much different from the iPad 2 then why would they give it to devs early?
more...
levitynyc
Apr 1, 08:40 AM
Just buy a Slingbox and watch any channel you want, anywhere you want.
thatisme
Mar 28, 02:36 PM
No you will not.
Edit: to clarify, if you take an EF 17-40mm and put it on a 60D, you will get the exact same field of view as an EF-S 17-55mm if both are set to 17mm.
Well, no, you will not. You are not using the FULL image circle on the EF lens on the 60D. Take that same EF 17-40 and put it on a 5D and your image will be composed differently. NOTE: the Lens has not changed it's focal length, but your image HAS changed.
The common misconception is that your field of view is what the CAMERA records. In actuality, it is what the LENS TRANSMITS to the camera. Since your 1.6 crop camera does not utilize the FULL lens image circle on an EF lens, it has the effect of zooming the transmitted image. SO your 17mm is not 17mm on a crop camera, it is the equivalent of a 27.2mm (28mm) EF-S lens. 17 x 1.6 = 27.2. On a 1D camera, that same 17mm is the equivalent of 22.1mm, where a 5D as a FULL FRAME camera is using the full image circle from the EF lens, so it is a true 17mm.
Edit: to clarify, if you take an EF 17-40mm and put it on a 60D, you will get the exact same field of view as an EF-S 17-55mm if both are set to 17mm.
Well, no, you will not. You are not using the FULL image circle on the EF lens on the 60D. Take that same EF 17-40 and put it on a 5D and your image will be composed differently. NOTE: the Lens has not changed it's focal length, but your image HAS changed.
The common misconception is that your field of view is what the CAMERA records. In actuality, it is what the LENS TRANSMITS to the camera. Since your 1.6 crop camera does not utilize the FULL lens image circle on an EF lens, it has the effect of zooming the transmitted image. SO your 17mm is not 17mm on a crop camera, it is the equivalent of a 27.2mm (28mm) EF-S lens. 17 x 1.6 = 27.2. On a 1D camera, that same 17mm is the equivalent of 22.1mm, where a 5D as a FULL FRAME camera is using the full image circle from the EF lens, so it is a true 17mm.
more...
MovieCutter
Sep 27, 12:46 PM
Me too. And I wish Safari had a "Sure you want to quit?" dialog box for those times when we accidentally do a Command + Q in it.
It does in Leopard...
It does in Leopard...
melchior
Jan 10, 12:05 AM
I wish the contact pictures where synced full size and not the mini verison
96x96 is a ridiculous size when the iphone displays the photos across 320x320
not to mention the fact that the application overwrote my existing photos despite not selecting the option.
96x96 is a ridiculous size when the iphone displays the photos across 320x320
not to mention the fact that the application overwrote my existing photos despite not selecting the option.
PlipPlop
Apr 21, 06:07 PM
Yeah... a slide out Joy stick! :rolleyes:
Give me 2 of them and maybe we can talk.
Give me 2 of them and maybe we can talk.
Chundles
Sep 27, 08:57 AM
Yep, sounds good. I likes me some OS updates.
Rack up another one (10.4.9) in December followed by another just before Leopard (10.4.10) and I reckon we'd be done.
Rack up another one (10.4.9) in December followed by another just before Leopard (10.4.10) and I reckon we'd be done.
Stridder44
Sep 27, 12:32 PM
No, not THIS discussion AGAIN. This got a lot of talk at 10.3.9...
Yes, if anyone starts that @#% up again I will punch a room full of children.
Yes, if anyone starts that @#% up again I will punch a room full of children.
HexMonkey
Jun 1, 05:21 AM
Even then we're still talking about hundreds of articles. I think it would be faster to design a structure as best we can, implement it, then fix any problems if there are any. That way we might have to edit some articles twice, rather than definitely having to edit all the articles in the beta categories twice.
iJohnHenry
Apr 8, 07:23 PM
Originally Posted by Xeperu View Post
"Humans should have the full right to decide over their own bodies, that includes planned parenthood and abortions."
Apparently HIS statement only means some humans.....
OK, time to lead your Squad over to the PC forums.
You will have no luck here, with your selective definition of 'Human'.
"Humans should have the full right to decide over their own bodies, that includes planned parenthood and abortions."
Apparently HIS statement only means some humans.....
OK, time to lead your Squad over to the PC forums.
You will have no luck here, with your selective definition of 'Human'.
remmy
Dec 17, 08:46 AM
Explain how it's adding unpredictability if we're being told what song to buy, to get to No.1? By my definition that's the complete opposite of unpredictable.
If it's "just some fun" then that's a different story...but it's not. It's about people getting all whinny because they think Simon Cowell is taking over the music industry, and leading us like sheep to make his song's No.1. If you don't like the damn XFactor songs then quite rightly don't buy them! Buy what you want to become No.1. But when when people deliberately try and manipulate the results, thinking it will "teach that man a lesson", it becomes less about the music and more about some stupid battle with Simon Cowell!
The song I want to see at No.1 is the song that I like most at that particular time, not the song that I think will give the best metaphorical finger to Mr. Cowell.
Even if lots of people do by either track we do not know who is going to get the most. I would guess its still likely to be the x-factor finalist. Do you know who it will be, are you 100% put your life savings on it certain. If it was only X-factor then it would be certainty isnt it? Because there would only be 1 song in the race.
If it's "just some fun" then that's a different story...but it's not. It's about people getting all whinny because they think Simon Cowell is taking over the music industry, and leading us like sheep to make his song's No.1. If you don't like the damn XFactor songs then quite rightly don't buy them! Buy what you want to become No.1. But when when people deliberately try and manipulate the results, thinking it will "teach that man a lesson", it becomes less about the music and more about some stupid battle with Simon Cowell!
The song I want to see at No.1 is the song that I like most at that particular time, not the song that I think will give the best metaphorical finger to Mr. Cowell.
Even if lots of people do by either track we do not know who is going to get the most. I would guess its still likely to be the x-factor finalist. Do you know who it will be, are you 100% put your life savings on it certain. If it was only X-factor then it would be certainty isnt it? Because there would only be 1 song in the race.
No comments:
Post a Comment