NewGenAdam
Apr 12, 03:03 PM
What about denying somebody a job because of their, say, intelligence? Charisma? Any number of things that are largely predetermined?
Surely it would be unfair to judge somebody by their intelligence because so much of it is down to parental intelligence and wealth; how much they can teach you and how much they can pay for the best educations. (D's A)
In theory I suppose we should only judge people for things which are entirely their own doing; things which are neither a product of their genes or upbringing. But then, taking those away, what remains?
Not much really. In practice, I fear people are at least in some part judged for merits in which their efforts play a smaller part. Like natural intelligence, or sporting ability. Is this wrong? Perhaps on some abstract moral level, but I think it's probably permissible unless someone wants to call me a senseless bigot.
Surely it would be unfair to judge somebody by their intelligence because so much of it is down to parental intelligence and wealth; how much they can teach you and how much they can pay for the best educations. (D's A)
In theory I suppose we should only judge people for things which are entirely their own doing; things which are neither a product of their genes or upbringing. But then, taking those away, what remains?
Not much really. In practice, I fear people are at least in some part judged for merits in which their efforts play a smaller part. Like natural intelligence, or sporting ability. Is this wrong? Perhaps on some abstract moral level, but I think it's probably permissible unless someone wants to call me a senseless bigot.
JDDavis
Mar 11, 08:07 PM
http://img852.imageshack.us/img852/5457/theroad.jpg (http://img852.imageshack.us/i/theroad.jpg/)
This is great contrast. Love the yellow. Even though it's a bit centered it works because of the curves and the lighting. My suggestion is to go ahead and black out the sky that's showing through. To me it makes it even stronger. I tried cropping it and I think it looks better at it's current size with the sky blacked out.
This is great contrast. Love the yellow. Even though it's a bit centered it works because of the curves and the lighting. My suggestion is to go ahead and black out the sky that's showing through. To me it makes it even stronger. I tried cropping it and I think it looks better at it's current size with the sky blacked out.
ehoui
May 5, 01:14 PM
The real question is why do people still buy Macs (in increasing numbers) in spite of this... hmmm... makes you wonder...
AppleScruff1
Apr 22, 05:21 PM
The report found that 67% of Mac users have a college or advanced degree, as opposed to 54% of PC users. Mac loyalists are 80% more likely than PC users to be vegetarians, and, unlike PC fans, would rather ride a Vespa scooter than a Harley.
Mac users also are more likely to describe themselves as computer-savvy and "early adopters."
1. Real men ride Harleys.
And Mac users consider themselves as computer savy, LOL! They prefer a simple OS that a monkey could use. Now that's savy.
Mac users also are more likely to describe themselves as computer-savvy and "early adopters."
1. Real men ride Harleys.
And Mac users consider themselves as computer savy, LOL! They prefer a simple OS that a monkey could use. Now that's savy.
more...
Hallivand
Apr 19, 09:39 PM
... to appease old school folks like yourself. It's off by default. OSX has always been about not having to think about managing the OS and focusing on being productive, creative and enjoying the purpose of the computer. Letting the OS manage system resources is the next logical step.
Apps don't need to be running if they're not being used. If the OS saves all work and opening an app is nearly instantaneous, then there is no difference between a running app or a closed app running some services in the background.
Nonetheless, the ability to turn the lights back on is a temporary transitional ability. It will no doubt be gone in the OS after Lion and only few people clinging to the past will look to turn them on.
Sometimes I like to know whats running and what isn't, at a glance. It's not just "old school folk", I'm relatively new to the Mac scene and its great to see with that light showing me whats running, whether MSN is recieving anything, etc.
I understand Apple's motivation for removing it, but until Lion matures I'm not 100% confident in the OS ensuring that I don't encounter lag when I don't want it to. It's perfect the way it is at the moment. :)
Apps don't need to be running if they're not being used. If the OS saves all work and opening an app is nearly instantaneous, then there is no difference between a running app or a closed app running some services in the background.
Nonetheless, the ability to turn the lights back on is a temporary transitional ability. It will no doubt be gone in the OS after Lion and only few people clinging to the past will look to turn them on.
Sometimes I like to know whats running and what isn't, at a glance. It's not just "old school folk", I'm relatively new to the Mac scene and its great to see with that light showing me whats running, whether MSN is recieving anything, etc.
I understand Apple's motivation for removing it, but until Lion matures I'm not 100% confident in the OS ensuring that I don't encounter lag when I don't want it to. It's perfect the way it is at the moment. :)
Full of Win
Mar 13, 08:04 PM
The only thing that would be news worthy would be if a DST went off without a foulup from iOS.
I shutter to think of the effect that Feburary 29th will have.
I shutter to think of the effect that Feburary 29th will have.
more...
bildio
Apr 20, 03:44 PM
Try updating windows 7 through windows update. Make sure you have the lastest updates for Windows 7. I had this problem too, but after I updated everything, it worked like a charm. No shutdown issues.
It worked itself out. I don't remember if I did anything, like updates for Windows 7, or if it was just related to the initial install & a one time occurence.
It worked itself out. I don't remember if I did anything, like updates for Windows 7, or if it was just related to the initial install & a one time occurence.
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...
User3977
Oct 6, 10:43 PM
i dont know if it was posted yet but god please put out an iphone with a physical keyboard.
http://images.mobilefun.co.uk/graphics/misc/Blogs/iPhone/iphone-pro-large.jpg
i miss my tilt and the ability to see everything i type in text.
http://images.mobilefun.co.uk/graphics/misc/Blogs/iPhone/iphone-pro-large.jpg
i miss my tilt and the ability to see everything i type in text.
iGary
Apr 2, 04:30 PM
I haven't used it yet either, but I plan on giving it a go for my first newsletter for my burgeoning photo biz.
I have played around with it a bit, but really can't comment yet.
I like Word for one thing: typing. I'm a writer (not trying to sound egotistical) and I hate it when an application tries to tell me how do do something TOTALLY WRONG. (And yes, I know I can turn that off.)
</rant>
I have played around with it a bit, but really can't comment yet.
I like Word for one thing: typing. I'm a writer (not trying to sound egotistical) and I hate it when an application tries to tell me how do do something TOTALLY WRONG. (And yes, I know I can turn that off.)
</rant>
more...
malevolant
May 2, 01:25 PM
Image (http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/05/02/133732-consumer_reports_iphone_thickness.jpg)
All this image shows is that the person measuring the white iPhone 4 has no idea how to use a caliper. The idea of a caliper isn't to squeeze the crap out of whatever you're measuring. It is obvious that the in the right picture they are squeezing much harder just looking at the discoloration of the persons skin on their thumb.
All this image shows is that the person measuring the white iPhone 4 has no idea how to use a caliper. The idea of a caliper isn't to squeeze the crap out of whatever you're measuring. It is obvious that the in the right picture they are squeezing much harder just looking at the discoloration of the persons skin on their thumb.
jsquared
Jul 11, 12:10 AM
We have a laptop and I still have my iPhone. There's about 20 people in line now. It's just after midnight...if you couldn't tell by the time the post was made.:apple:
more...
Rdclark
Apr 15, 11:55 AM
In January Consumer Reports surveyed over 58,000 of its subscribers on the quality of their cell phone service, with categories for voice, data, customer service, and coverage.
Both overall and localized for 26 different US cities, Verizon far outperformed AT&T in this survey.
It's customary for the tech community to scoff at Consumer Reports' findings, and often with very good reason. But if you ask 58k people, mostly the sort of middle-class folks that are typical CR subscribers, how satisfied they are with their cell phone service, the results IMO can't be easily dismissed. In this large sample, far more people were very unhappy with AT&T than with Verizon.
I found this -- as a person buying an iPad 2 as
1. a netbook/iPad/GPS/e-reader replacement, who
2. neither owns nor wants a smartphone, and who
3. spends nearly 100% of his time in large American cities
--to be a compelling argument in favor of Verizon. Far more compelling than any anecdotal evidence, which is all I see in this thread.
After a month with my 64GB white 3g iPad, I've had no reason to regret my choice. Verizon has never failed to connect, never dropped a connection, never seemed particularly sluggish (although I wait for wifi to download large files), and their pricing seems to fit my usage patterns more economically than AT&T's would have.
My point: it's possible for a rational person to research and analyze this question and come up with Verizon as an answer, and then be happy with that choice. Contrary to some assertions otherwise.
Both overall and localized for 26 different US cities, Verizon far outperformed AT&T in this survey.
It's customary for the tech community to scoff at Consumer Reports' findings, and often with very good reason. But if you ask 58k people, mostly the sort of middle-class folks that are typical CR subscribers, how satisfied they are with their cell phone service, the results IMO can't be easily dismissed. In this large sample, far more people were very unhappy with AT&T than with Verizon.
I found this -- as a person buying an iPad 2 as
1. a netbook/iPad/GPS/e-reader replacement, who
2. neither owns nor wants a smartphone, and who
3. spends nearly 100% of his time in large American cities
--to be a compelling argument in favor of Verizon. Far more compelling than any anecdotal evidence, which is all I see in this thread.
After a month with my 64GB white 3g iPad, I've had no reason to regret my choice. Verizon has never failed to connect, never dropped a connection, never seemed particularly sluggish (although I wait for wifi to download large files), and their pricing seems to fit my usage patterns more economically than AT&T's would have.
My point: it's possible for a rational person to research and analyze this question and come up with Verizon as an answer, and then be happy with that choice. Contrary to some assertions otherwise.
gkarris
Mar 12, 01:12 PM
Neither of those are assembled in the US. They are both the product of The Peoples' Democratic Revolutionary Socialist Province of Ontario.
Ha, ha...
HST got you down? :eek:
;)
Ha, ha...
HST got you down? :eek:
;)
more...
twoodcc
May 14, 08:16 PM
I did plan on building myself but I might get the store to do it for me. I have done HDD, GPUS, CD drives, Ram. I'm just have not done the CPU and I am affraid I will bend all the bits on it. Also all the cords that attach everywhere might confuse me, like power on button.
Would I need to overclock the 930 system, never done a thing like that before. Does it really add to the ppd, also I will be using the system myself so it will not fold 24/7.
Would a good GPU not be better then a Intel 930?
if you get an i7 930: you can run bigadv units, but you will need to overclock at least some. if you build the system yourself, an slight overclock is very easy (my motherboad has a 'dummy overclock' setting to set it to 3.2 ghz).
with bigadv units and the smp2 units, you get a bonus for how quick you return the work unit. a 930 at 4.0 ghz is about the same as a 2 x 2.26 ghz mac pro. but 4.0 ghz isn't easy.
so, if you don't feel like overclocking at least a little bit, you can just run the smp2 units. they still give a bonus, just they are worth less points.
GPUs use more power and create more heat. the big GPUs use a ton of power and cost quite a bit of money. i can look into a GPU vs 930 more later if you like.
the reason i recommend the 930 is b/c you can always add a GPU down the road.
also, i've not had that great of an experience building my own, so i kinda recommend buying one already built
Would I need to overclock the 930 system, never done a thing like that before. Does it really add to the ppd, also I will be using the system myself so it will not fold 24/7.
Would a good GPU not be better then a Intel 930?
if you get an i7 930: you can run bigadv units, but you will need to overclock at least some. if you build the system yourself, an slight overclock is very easy (my motherboad has a 'dummy overclock' setting to set it to 3.2 ghz).
with bigadv units and the smp2 units, you get a bonus for how quick you return the work unit. a 930 at 4.0 ghz is about the same as a 2 x 2.26 ghz mac pro. but 4.0 ghz isn't easy.
so, if you don't feel like overclocking at least a little bit, you can just run the smp2 units. they still give a bonus, just they are worth less points.
GPUs use more power and create more heat. the big GPUs use a ton of power and cost quite a bit of money. i can look into a GPU vs 930 more later if you like.
the reason i recommend the 930 is b/c you can always add a GPU down the road.
also, i've not had that great of an experience building my own, so i kinda recommend buying one already built
vastoholic
Mar 26, 06:42 AM
...
more...
kingtj
Nov 2, 11:43 AM
Absolutely ... and in all honesty, I think many had good reason to become "Mac haters" too. I was a hard-core PC user back in 1996 or 97, when I decided to take the plunge and try a Mac. (Wondered what all the fuss was about, and wanted to learn something new.) I bought a whole Performa tower system with color printer, etc. I think I put up with that for a whole 3 months before gladly selling it at a loss to someone else! Gag... non-upgradeable video with too little VRAM, worse multitasking under MacOS 8.x than my Windows PC before it had, etc.
It wasn't until I saw OS X on a G4 tower that I gave Apple another chance. And now, today, it's almost all I use at home!
Truthfully though, Apple still needs to do more. The Mac Pro is single-handedly changing the opinions of quite a few PC users who kept arguing that you could simply get more performance out of a Windows PC than a Mac. (It's hard to argue with a quad-core Xeon that can be upgraded to an 8-core version with a CPU swap, and costs less than a comparable Dell system.) And offering a 24" LCD iMac is a good "power user" move too - since it silences the people who whine about all-in-one designs, mainly because they can't get a big display with one.
But IMHO, Apple is a little weak in the video card dept. still. The Mac Mini now costs $100-200 more than it did when it came out, and you still get wimpy, non-upgradeable graphics in it. The Core Duo 2 CPU in one *really* starts to make that look lopsided. Even the iMacs could use something like Radeon X1900XT's in them - because the home market they target includes a lot of teens who want to play games on the computer.
And I'm *really* hoping they start doing more to get software ported to OS X. The ability to boot into Windows shouldn't become an excuse for developers not to make native OS X versions of software. I barely ever boot into XP on my Mac Pro because I like the OS X environment so much better. So the games I tend to play on it are the ones like "Call of Duty 2" I have for OS X.
It's sad though, many people still hate macs. People who have not used one since the old OS 8 / OS 9 days. The 'only one-mouse button / expensive / can't run any programs' image still tarnishes apple. It might take another couple of years for that to wear off from people. At least.
It wasn't until I saw OS X on a G4 tower that I gave Apple another chance. And now, today, it's almost all I use at home!
Truthfully though, Apple still needs to do more. The Mac Pro is single-handedly changing the opinions of quite a few PC users who kept arguing that you could simply get more performance out of a Windows PC than a Mac. (It's hard to argue with a quad-core Xeon that can be upgraded to an 8-core version with a CPU swap, and costs less than a comparable Dell system.) And offering a 24" LCD iMac is a good "power user" move too - since it silences the people who whine about all-in-one designs, mainly because they can't get a big display with one.
But IMHO, Apple is a little weak in the video card dept. still. The Mac Mini now costs $100-200 more than it did when it came out, and you still get wimpy, non-upgradeable graphics in it. The Core Duo 2 CPU in one *really* starts to make that look lopsided. Even the iMacs could use something like Radeon X1900XT's in them - because the home market they target includes a lot of teens who want to play games on the computer.
And I'm *really* hoping they start doing more to get software ported to OS X. The ability to boot into Windows shouldn't become an excuse for developers not to make native OS X versions of software. I barely ever boot into XP on my Mac Pro because I like the OS X environment so much better. So the games I tend to play on it are the ones like "Call of Duty 2" I have for OS X.
It's sad though, many people still hate macs. People who have not used one since the old OS 8 / OS 9 days. The 'only one-mouse button / expensive / can't run any programs' image still tarnishes apple. It might take another couple of years for that to wear off from people. At least.
SmileyDude
Oct 26, 06:26 PM
Of course I can see the other side of this. Writing universal apps is not just a matter of "checking a box" in XCode; despite what I've heard some non-coders say on the subject.
I call bull -- I have a lot of code that I compile as universal at home and work. Sure it's a little more than checking a box, but for a lot of code, it's not much more.
And for an app that started as Intel, making the reverse transition is probably much easier. There is no CodeWarrior legacy crap, MPW, etc, etc. It already compiles in GCC 4 and will continue to do so under PPC. The only remaining issues are endian issues and maybe the possible use of assembly code.
I call bull -- I have a lot of code that I compile as universal at home and work. Sure it's a little more than checking a box, but for a lot of code, it's not much more.
And for an app that started as Intel, making the reverse transition is probably much easier. There is no CodeWarrior legacy crap, MPW, etc, etc. It already compiles in GCC 4 and will continue to do so under PPC. The only remaining issues are endian issues and maybe the possible use of assembly code.
inkswamp
Apr 12, 08:04 PM
Strange coincidence. Android fanboy tears have increased about 40% too.
Marzzz
Mar 13, 04:11 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I live in Arizona and we don't follow daylight savings time, but my phone jumped an hour ahead. I'm on AT&T btw
Exact same thing happened to me, AT&T iPhone 4, set to "Arizona" (not Mountain) time. I power cycled the phone and it reset to the correct time.
I live in Arizona and we don't follow daylight savings time, but my phone jumped an hour ahead. I'm on AT&T btw
Exact same thing happened to me, AT&T iPhone 4, set to "Arizona" (not Mountain) time. I power cycled the phone and it reset to the correct time.
thatisme
Mar 28, 05:38 PM
I think you both just said exactly the same thing, so I'm not sure why Full of Win is arguing?
If I shoot my 50mm 1.8 II through my 7d I am effectively multiplying the lenses focal length with the cameras crop factor to give the photographs field of view. ie 50x1.6=80.
So focal length 50mm= field of view 80mm. (On a 1.6 crop)
Allthough...This statement from thatisme '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.' is false.
You will, in fact, get two different Field of Views but the same Focal Length.
Thanks for the correction, and good catch.
So, for the OP, the difference between EF-sand EF lenses is that EF-S are lighter and cheaper and are tied to 1.6 sensor cameras. EF is more versatile since they work on all EF mount cameras (including EF-S). They can be very cheap or very expensive(and good) when you get into L series lenses.
There is really no good reason to compare focal length or field of view between the two since construction wise, they are like apples and oranges.
Where it becomes relevant, is when you have an EF lens, and you own different format cameras ( like I do). my 400mm 2.8 L IS lens is a true 400mm on my 5D mark II, and 520mm on my 1D mark IIn (1.3) and 640mm on my old 20D. I don't really care about the EF-S mount since it only applies to one of the 3 camera bodies.
Is not true: a 50mm EF lens and a 50mm EF-s lens will have the same focal length and field of view on a crop camera.
This is not correct.
A EF-s 50 mm lens is 50 mm on a 1.6 camera. A 50mm EF lens on that same camera is similar in image to a 80mm EF-S lens. The reason for the difference comes into play by the amount of the lens the camera is using to record the image and the proximity of the rear element to the camera sensor.
If I shoot my 50mm 1.8 II through my 7d I am effectively multiplying the lenses focal length with the cameras crop factor to give the photographs field of view. ie 50x1.6=80.
So focal length 50mm= field of view 80mm. (On a 1.6 crop)
Allthough...This statement from thatisme '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.' is false.
You will, in fact, get two different Field of Views but the same Focal Length.
Thanks for the correction, and good catch.
So, for the OP, the difference between EF-sand EF lenses is that EF-S are lighter and cheaper and are tied to 1.6 sensor cameras. EF is more versatile since they work on all EF mount cameras (including EF-S). They can be very cheap or very expensive(and good) when you get into L series lenses.
There is really no good reason to compare focal length or field of view between the two since construction wise, they are like apples and oranges.
Where it becomes relevant, is when you have an EF lens, and you own different format cameras ( like I do). my 400mm 2.8 L IS lens is a true 400mm on my 5D mark II, and 520mm on my 1D mark IIn (1.3) and 640mm on my old 20D. I don't really care about the EF-S mount since it only applies to one of the 3 camera bodies.
Is not true: a 50mm EF lens and a 50mm EF-s lens will have the same focal length and field of view on a crop camera.
This is not correct.
A EF-s 50 mm lens is 50 mm on a 1.6 camera. A 50mm EF lens on that same camera is similar in image to a 80mm EF-S lens. The reason for the difference comes into play by the amount of the lens the camera is using to record the image and the proximity of the rear element to the camera sensor.
MrSmith
Apr 12, 08:08 PM
I'd be in the category 'looking for a reason to buy one, but just can't see what I'd use it for'.
bigcat318
Jun 3, 04:03 PM
Beta ends June 7th! Get your fix in!
Lloyd Christmas
Apr 18, 01:09 PM
I just paid $4.11 for a regular gallon of gas in New York. $49 for about half a tank gonna be a rough summer. Lloyd
