Dave H
Apr 1, 11:54 PM
$4.13 a gallon this afternoon for 87 octane (southern California).
awulf
Jul 5, 09:58 AM
The Macintosh SE has a 68000 processor which limits it to the StyleWriter series (I think up to the StyleWriter II works on it). Laser printers are different and to my knowledge all LaserWirters will work on a Mac SE.
THe Mac SE can have up to Mac OS 7.5.5, which includes the LaserWriter 8 driver and other LaserWriter Drivers.
It depends on what ports are available on your LaserWriter. Tell us the model name.
THe Mac SE can have up to Mac OS 7.5.5, which includes the LaserWriter 8 driver and other LaserWriter Drivers.
It depends on what ports are available on your LaserWriter. Tell us the model name.
InsanelyApple
Mar 11, 06:59 PM
I will be buying an American made car at some point in the near future.
Then you may want to buy a Toyota Camry. Ironic, I know. :rolleyes:
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/06/23/cars-com-american-made-index-ranks-toyota-camry-1-again/
Then you may want to buy a Toyota Camry. Ironic, I know. :rolleyes:
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/06/23/cars-com-american-made-index-ranks-toyota-camry-1-again/
fishkorp
Mar 28, 03:15 PM
Question for folks who have gone (or purchased ticket voucher). From the looks of it, you buy a voucher, which you then redeem online for a ticket, correct? Can you buy the voucher now, but fill in the attendee ticket details at a later time? I'm going to buy, but there's the off chance I won't be able to attend, so I'd like to give the ticket to someone else. The ticket holder needs photo ID to get in, so they obviously can't use my ticket. So I'd have to wait until I know for sure to claim the voucher, or put the other developer's information in.
Can that be done? Or do I need to claim the ticket at time of purchase? Based on the recent track record of WWDC selling out in a week, I'd like to make the purchase ASAP. Thanks.
Can that be done? Or do I need to claim the ticket at time of purchase? Based on the recent track record of WWDC selling out in a week, I'd like to make the purchase ASAP. Thanks.
more...
iJohnHenry
Apr 3, 07:19 PM
I have no idea what you're talking about. I was responding to Ugg. :confused:
My senility, of course.
Just relax, and it will flow over you. ;)
My senility, of course.
Just relax, and it will flow over you. ;)
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...
philitup23
Jan 7, 08:47 AM
Why do only some of the profile pics from facebook transfer over to my phone and not all of them? Where's the differentiation between the ones that transfer and the ones that dont?
THX1139
Sep 21, 01:28 PM
My Macpro is shipping tomorrow, I wonder if they will do the update since it's still technically in their hands.
Speaking of which, the build times are much faster! I ordered my Macpro with X1900, 2 gigs of ram, Bluetooth/Airport and 160 drive last Saturday. They placed a hold on my order until Tuesday while verifying my educational status, then sent me a notice the next day (Wednesday) telling me that my order is being processed. My Macpro is scheduled to ship tomorrow and my new 23" ACD is on the truck for delivery today. If everything goes well, I might have a new system for the weekend. That's pretty damn fast for a BTO!
Speaking of which, the build times are much faster! I ordered my Macpro with X1900, 2 gigs of ram, Bluetooth/Airport and 160 drive last Saturday. They placed a hold on my order until Tuesday while verifying my educational status, then sent me a notice the next day (Wednesday) telling me that my order is being processed. My Macpro is scheduled to ship tomorrow and my new 23" ACD is on the truck for delivery today. If everything goes well, I might have a new system for the weekend. That's pretty damn fast for a BTO!
more...
shadrap
Feb 18, 07:52 PM
All the geniuses in that room and I am sure Obama still thought he was smartest.
aiqw9182
Apr 5, 11:36 PM
It certainly isn't useless, it's designed so you can get high-quality stereo audio through it. You can't do that with a mic socket, the power in the socket for the mic can affect the sound quality, it causes a buzz. If you want high quality audio get a USB headset or a USB/FW microphone preamp. For the majority the iPhone headphones/mic or the built-in mic work just fine. Why do you need support for PC-style headsets?
Anyone doing serious recording through a 1/8 jack needs their head examined. The jack is useless in its current state. Why do I need support for 'PC style' headsets? Well for one there are a ton of new high quality headsets I could choose from and for two I could have a free USB port. The headphones that support the audio out microphone capability are either expensive as hell or not good for long periods of time.
Anyone doing serious recording through a 1/8 jack needs their head examined. The jack is useless in its current state. Why do I need support for 'PC style' headsets? Well for one there are a ton of new high quality headsets I could choose from and for two I could have a free USB port. The headphones that support the audio out microphone capability are either expensive as hell or not good for long periods of time.
more...
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
Rower_CPU
May 5, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by markjs
I was drawn to this forum because I am interested in computers generally and macs almost qualify.....but seriously I poked around on a mac for about an hour today, and found that some things are less intuitive (minimizing and closing windows). Also I found that some things easily accessible in windows are not accessible at all in mac OSX. I felt like the computer was "dumbed down" for me. All in all it was a computer and pefectly capable internet machine, but at least in an hour nothing even came close to winning me ove. Oh yeah it also crashed once too.
Care to be more specific? It's easier to address your "problems" if you can tell us what kind of hardware you were on, what version of the OS it was running, and what types of things you were trying to do that were "more accessible" in Windows?
Regarding intuitiveness, it's tough to objectively say that one is more intuitive than the other unless you've never used a computer before. You have a prejudice for where things should be from using Windows, as we do from using Macs. You expect things to work the way they do in Windows, and if it doesn't, it's "not intuitive" to you, not necessarily to other people.
I was drawn to this forum because I am interested in computers generally and macs almost qualify.....but seriously I poked around on a mac for about an hour today, and found that some things are less intuitive (minimizing and closing windows). Also I found that some things easily accessible in windows are not accessible at all in mac OSX. I felt like the computer was "dumbed down" for me. All in all it was a computer and pefectly capable internet machine, but at least in an hour nothing even came close to winning me ove. Oh yeah it also crashed once too.
Care to be more specific? It's easier to address your "problems" if you can tell us what kind of hardware you were on, what version of the OS it was running, and what types of things you were trying to do that were "more accessible" in Windows?
Regarding intuitiveness, it's tough to objectively say that one is more intuitive than the other unless you've never used a computer before. You have a prejudice for where things should be from using Windows, as we do from using Macs. You expect things to work the way they do in Windows, and if it doesn't, it's "not intuitive" to you, not necessarily to other people.
more...
fragiledreams
Sep 16, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
But sometimes fantasy can be so much better than reality.
And if you deviate too much, the drugs they'll give you in the looney bin will really warp your mind.
---
Note: the above post has no basis in reality. But for those that have always used Apples, sometimes it's really hard to think like a PC user without drugs.
The truth is that it is too hard for me to follow some of you guys when you compare Ferarri / Mercedes with Daewoo / Yugo. Is this the best you can do to make a point?
Really pathetic, may I say. :rolleyes:
But sometimes fantasy can be so much better than reality.
And if you deviate too much, the drugs they'll give you in the looney bin will really warp your mind.
---
Note: the above post has no basis in reality. But for those that have always used Apples, sometimes it's really hard to think like a PC user without drugs.
The truth is that it is too hard for me to follow some of you guys when you compare Ferarri / Mercedes with Daewoo / Yugo. Is this the best you can do to make a point?
Really pathetic, may I say. :rolleyes:
bketchum
Oct 10, 07:58 PM
Rick Aristotle Munarriz, of Motley Fool, has a great response to this story...
http://biz.yahoo.com/fool/061010/116050625611.html?.v=1
http://biz.yahoo.com/fool/061010/116050625611.html?.v=1
more...
LIVEFRMNYC
Dec 27, 09:43 PM
It is not like these thieves would be waiting til the holidays to use this info.
You can't be serious. The Holiday season is when online fraud is at it's peak, especially in places like NYC.
ikes wallpapers download.
more...
wallpapers of ikes.
racing ikes wallpapers
Yamaha-Bike-(Wallpaper)
You can't be serious. The Holiday season is when online fraud is at it's peak, especially in places like NYC.
macharborguy
Mar 23, 04:43 PM
If the goal of Apple software is to sell Apple hardware, wouldn't it make more sense to give the airplay licenses away rather than trying to sell them?
You are looking at this from a "buying new products" position. What about all of those people who already own Roku and Boxee set-top systems? Those boxes are fully updatable and capable of playing back the exact same content the AppleTV can play (MPEG4, AAC, MP3, H.264, etc).
And for people that already own those, NONE of them would switch to an AppleTV. Reason: Roku and Boxee have far more features, save one (AirPlay), and AirPlay alone is not worth $99 to most of those Roku and Boxee owners.
I own a Roku so I can connect it to not only my HDTV in my living room, but move it to my old CRT television in my bedroom (via Component/Composite cables) as well as to hotel TVs when I bring it with me on vacations or out-of-town trips. I would love for AirPlay video to be supported on it.
You are looking at this from a "buying new products" position. What about all of those people who already own Roku and Boxee set-top systems? Those boxes are fully updatable and capable of playing back the exact same content the AppleTV can play (MPEG4, AAC, MP3, H.264, etc).
And for people that already own those, NONE of them would switch to an AppleTV. Reason: Roku and Boxee have far more features, save one (AirPlay), and AirPlay alone is not worth $99 to most of those Roku and Boxee owners.
I own a Roku so I can connect it to not only my HDTV in my living room, but move it to my old CRT television in my bedroom (via Component/Composite cables) as well as to hotel TVs when I bring it with me on vacations or out-of-town trips. I would love for AirPlay video to be supported on it.
more...
Rower_CPU
May 5, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by markjs
I was drawn to this forum because I am interested in computers generally and macs almost qualify.....but seriously I poked around on a mac for about an hour today, and found that some things are less intuitive (minimizing and closing windows). Also I found that some things easily accessible in windows are not accessible at all in mac OSX. I felt like the computer was "dumbed down" for me. All in all it was a computer and pefectly capable internet machine, but at least in an hour nothing even came close to winning me ove. Oh yeah it also crashed once too.
Care to be more specific? It's easier to address your "problems" if you can tell us what kind of hardware you were on, what version of the OS it was running, and what types of things you were trying to do that were "more accessible" in Windows?
Regarding intuitiveness, it's tough to objectively say that one is more intuitive than the other unless you've never used a computer before. You have a prejudice for where things should be from using Windows, as we do from using Macs. You expect things to work the way they do in Windows, and if it doesn't, it's "not intuitive" to you, not necessarily to other people.
I was drawn to this forum because I am interested in computers generally and macs almost qualify.....but seriously I poked around on a mac for about an hour today, and found that some things are less intuitive (minimizing and closing windows). Also I found that some things easily accessible in windows are not accessible at all in mac OSX. I felt like the computer was "dumbed down" for me. All in all it was a computer and pefectly capable internet machine, but at least in an hour nothing even came close to winning me ove. Oh yeah it also crashed once too.
Care to be more specific? It's easier to address your "problems" if you can tell us what kind of hardware you were on, what version of the OS it was running, and what types of things you were trying to do that were "more accessible" in Windows?
Regarding intuitiveness, it's tough to objectively say that one is more intuitive than the other unless you've never used a computer before. You have a prejudice for where things should be from using Windows, as we do from using Macs. You expect things to work the way they do in Windows, and if it doesn't, it's "not intuitive" to you, not necessarily to other people.
daneoni
Jan 7, 06:32 PM
Push effectively doesn't work for me unless i switch alerts on...badges and sounds don't work and i really cant be bothered to start restoring/resetting/reformatting my phone because of one app. I've tried deleting and re-installing the app and thats as far as i'll go.
So its back to hourly email updates for me.
So its back to hourly email updates for me.
yg17
Mar 11, 10:13 PM
Ok now- let's just make one thing clear. :D
I'm single. I need a sexy car, not a four door. :)
Well, I know if I had to buy a new car now, the Hyundai Genesis coupe would be on my short list. I would definitely take one out for a test drive at the very least.
I'm single. I need a sexy car, not a four door. :)
Well, I know if I had to buy a new car now, the Hyundai Genesis coupe would be on my short list. I would definitely take one out for a test drive at the very least.
hayesk
Mar 28, 09:41 AM
Anyone else thinks that Apple is readying the merger between iOS and MacOSX, at last?
I mean, why would the OSX get sliders instead of buttons (-> finder, etc)? And how would otherwise be the file-sharing in a cloud-centric iOS possible?
Looking quite forward to it!
What remains to clear how they would deal with the custom Apple ARM vs Intel chipsets programming issue (just as ppc and intel?), programming of apps (.app vs .ipa) ...
Oh, a lot more remains to be clear than that. Like the fact that MacOS X and iOS have completely different UI layers, Window managers, input methods, memory systems, etc.
People often think a few UI elements are all that make up the OS, but there is so much more happening under the hood, and in the way the user interacts with the machine, that it's pretty clear that a merge between desktop and touch-based OSes are a loooong way off, if ever.
I mean, why would the OSX get sliders instead of buttons (-> finder, etc)? And how would otherwise be the file-sharing in a cloud-centric iOS possible?
Looking quite forward to it!
What remains to clear how they would deal with the custom Apple ARM vs Intel chipsets programming issue (just as ppc and intel?), programming of apps (.app vs .ipa) ...
Oh, a lot more remains to be clear than that. Like the fact that MacOS X and iOS have completely different UI layers, Window managers, input methods, memory systems, etc.
People often think a few UI elements are all that make up the OS, but there is so much more happening under the hood, and in the way the user interacts with the machine, that it's pretty clear that a merge between desktop and touch-based OSes are a loooong way off, if ever.
aegisdesign
Oct 16, 07:09 PM
Of course it's due soon....
.... my Sony Ericsson P990i arrives Thursday so Apple are bound to come out with an iPhone now I've bought a new phone.
.... my Sony Ericsson P990i arrives Thursday so Apple are bound to come out with an iPhone now I've bought a new phone.
2 Replies
Apr 19, 11:29 AM
Also, oopsie hardware releases aside, how would a "supposedly" early software build of iOS5 end up in the prototype phone of some guy in South East Asia? Hardware production is outsourced to Asia, yes, but software would be held pretty damn closely. Maybe I'm wrong?
BS- IMHO this is a shamster.
(Bold added for reference.)
Read the article title again genius. :rolleyes:
... or actually RTFA. (second to last paragraph).
BS- IMHO this is a shamster.
(Bold added for reference.)
Read the article title again genius. :rolleyes:
... or actually RTFA. (second to last paragraph).
Ugg
Mar 27, 10:24 AM
Publicity stunt?
I can't help but think that along with Steve's various email responses to customers, that Steve is morphing. Into what exactly, I'm not sure, but he seems to be more interested in responding to people. Maybe that new liver has something to do with it? At any rate, it's a very calculated move. Nothing he does is without a goal in mind.
I can't help but think that along with Steve's various email responses to customers, that Steve is morphing. Into what exactly, I'm not sure, but he seems to be more interested in responding to people. Maybe that new liver has something to do with it? At any rate, it's a very calculated move. Nothing he does is without a goal in mind.
~Shard~
Oct 26, 12:56 PM
No PowerPC version? Ouch. Lets hope that's not a growing trend for all you golden oldies out there :p
Yeah, I knew this was inevitable. (I'm running a 1.25 GHz G4 iMac.) That being said, for the applications I use (and this won't be one of them), I honestly don't see myself being forced to buy an Intel machine for a loooong time. Just because Adobe has decided to rpoceed in this manner doesn't mean other companies will follow suit. And you can bet that Apple definitely won't, at least not for a few more years. Heck, Classic was supported until what, last year essentially? And the G3 machines up until Leopard? ;) :cool:
Yeah, I knew this was inevitable. (I'm running a 1.25 GHz G4 iMac.) That being said, for the applications I use (and this won't be one of them), I honestly don't see myself being forced to buy an Intel machine for a loooong time. Just because Adobe has decided to rpoceed in this manner doesn't mean other companies will follow suit. And you can bet that Apple definitely won't, at least not for a few more years. Heck, Classic was supported until what, last year essentially? And the G3 machines up until Leopard? ;) :cool:
No comments:
Post a Comment