HMFIC03
Mar 28, 11:23 PM
According to Pocket-Lint, Apple will be revealing the iPhone 5 at their keynote on June 6th.
http://www.slashphone.com/apple-iphone-5-will-be-announce-on-june-6th-2816614?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+slashphone+%28SlashPhone%29
http://www.slashphone.com/apple-iphone-5-will-be-announce-on-june-6th-2816614?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+slashphone+%28SlashPhone%29
Lord Blackadder
Sep 22, 01:27 PM
F Wal-Mart, there is simply nothing positive or good about the entire organization. I have nothing more to say on the subject. :mad:
BruiserB
Mar 25, 01:23 PM
The direct links download as *.zip files. Do I just change to *.ipsw?
fertilized-egg
Apr 3, 04:03 PM
Which is probably what they thought when they were designing the first SLRs.
Until someone had the brainwave of sticking in an extra lens element to accommodate the mirror.
Staying away from the traditional rangefinder lens deign did not make the lens thinner, it just allowed the extra room to clear out the mirror swing but the les had to get bigger and protrude more. It is like saying "no need to make the phone thicker, just make the lens stck out!" which obviously isn't really an attractive solution - it was done one a few years ago and didn't fare all that well.
Until someone had the brainwave of sticking in an extra lens element to accommodate the mirror.
Staying away from the traditional rangefinder lens deign did not make the lens thinner, it just allowed the extra room to clear out the mirror swing but the les had to get bigger and protrude more. It is like saying "no need to make the phone thicker, just make the lens stck out!" which obviously isn't really an attractive solution - it was done one a few years ago and didn't fare all that well.
solarguy17
Mar 28, 01:05 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 used to work at RS and really it was pretty good place to work. It was commission but I always made around $10 or so an hour. Yeah, it maybe overpriced but generally the employees are more intelligent then BB employees and way better then WM employees.
Walmart is way worse the RS.
I used to work at RS and really it was pretty good place to work. It was commission but I always made around $10 or so an hour. Yeah, it maybe overpriced but generally the employees are more intelligent then BB employees and way better then WM employees.
Walmart is way worse the RS.
Mr. DG
Oct 15, 03:57 PM
Another point - is that article cut down from a larger piece? The interviewer did a really bad job of following up the tough questions - he just let Jobs spin the answer (very skilfully, granted) into an Apple advert. No pushing for answers, just a change of topic.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 7, 05:19 PM
The secular bible might come off as a silly idea. But i've often pondered what i will tell my kids when the day comes and they ask "some people in my class are christian and some are jewish, what are we?" Kids hate feeling excluded, so i feel like saying we don't have a religion wouldnt go over well because they really don't understand what it means.
They don't usually think that way. They'll just be glad they don't have to endure going to church.
They don't usually think that way. They'll just be glad they don't have to endure going to church.
acslater017
Aug 29, 09:13 AM
this may be a dumb question, but what is the difference between all those versions? I mean, between "Upgrade" and "Regular Price"? What's considered an upgrade
bketchum
Sep 4, 04:07 PM
Originally Posted by Ted13
I certainly hope that the resolution on the Apple Movie Store will be AT LEAST 480x720 (aka 480P). Otherwise, between Netflix and super cheap DVDs these days, I don't see how Apple can compete with lower than DVD resolution.
If they are really smart (and the studios play ball, which is doubtful) they would go straight to 1080P.
I agree with you on the DVD quality. But could imagine how long it would take to downlaod a 1080p film? Days! The hard drive space would be another thing, it would be about 10 or 11 gigs for one film! At least. This is not going to be possible for at least 3 or 4 years I would say.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Just as a test (not very scientific)... I went to the Apple Quicktime site and downloaded "The Queen" HD movie trailer at 1080P. Using an iBook connected to Airport Extreme wifi that's connected to an advertised 5-Mbps internet cable service, it took me about 5 minutes to download the 2-minute, 150-MB trailer. A little math tells me that a two-hour movie will take me about 300 minutes (5 hours) to download, and the size of the file will be about 9000 Mb in size.
To me that's not outrageous. However, it does mean planning ahead. I won't be able to start watching the movie five minutes after I've started downloading it. The real-time viewing will catch up to the download. I would need to give it about a four-hour head start.
No matter, my 1.33-GHz iBook isn't powerful enough to play 1080P HD movies without dropping frames and sound every few seconds. I think there are a lot of people in the same position as me. I cannot believe that Apple will offer just one level of movie quality. Just like what Apple currently offers on its movie trailer site, I'm guessing you'll be able to rent or buy 480P, 720P, or 1080P quality movies.
It took me just 50 seconds to download the same two-minute-long trailer at 480P quality. The size of the file is about 30 Mb. That means it will take me about 50 minutes to download the whole 1800 MB movie. At that rate, I can start watching the movie right away. My internet connection provides a download rate that is twice as fast as the movie viewing rate. That is exactly what I want. On impulse, I can be watching any movie I want within a few seconds. At full screen on my iBook, the 480P movie looks like I'm watching a rented DVD movie. The best part: No trips to incredibly annoying video stores.
I'm guessing the time it takes to download a 720P movie, and its file size, will fall somewhere halfway between the 480P and the 1080P movie.
I certainly hope that the resolution on the Apple Movie Store will be AT LEAST 480x720 (aka 480P). Otherwise, between Netflix and super cheap DVDs these days, I don't see how Apple can compete with lower than DVD resolution.
If they are really smart (and the studios play ball, which is doubtful) they would go straight to 1080P.
I agree with you on the DVD quality. But could imagine how long it would take to downlaod a 1080p film? Days! The hard drive space would be another thing, it would be about 10 or 11 gigs for one film! At least. This is not going to be possible for at least 3 or 4 years I would say.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Just as a test (not very scientific)... I went to the Apple Quicktime site and downloaded "The Queen" HD movie trailer at 1080P. Using an iBook connected to Airport Extreme wifi that's connected to an advertised 5-Mbps internet cable service, it took me about 5 minutes to download the 2-minute, 150-MB trailer. A little math tells me that a two-hour movie will take me about 300 minutes (5 hours) to download, and the size of the file will be about 9000 Mb in size.
To me that's not outrageous. However, it does mean planning ahead. I won't be able to start watching the movie five minutes after I've started downloading it. The real-time viewing will catch up to the download. I would need to give it about a four-hour head start.
No matter, my 1.33-GHz iBook isn't powerful enough to play 1080P HD movies without dropping frames and sound every few seconds. I think there are a lot of people in the same position as me. I cannot believe that Apple will offer just one level of movie quality. Just like what Apple currently offers on its movie trailer site, I'm guessing you'll be able to rent or buy 480P, 720P, or 1080P quality movies.
It took me just 50 seconds to download the same two-minute-long trailer at 480P quality. The size of the file is about 30 Mb. That means it will take me about 50 minutes to download the whole 1800 MB movie. At that rate, I can start watching the movie right away. My internet connection provides a download rate that is twice as fast as the movie viewing rate. That is exactly what I want. On impulse, I can be watching any movie I want within a few seconds. At full screen on my iBook, the 480P movie looks like I'm watching a rented DVD movie. The best part: No trips to incredibly annoying video stores.
I'm guessing the time it takes to download a 720P movie, and its file size, will fall somewhere halfway between the 480P and the 1080P movie.
MrMoore
Nov 24, 09:47 AM
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/8C148a Safari/6533.18.5)
The Beatles are now in iTunes?!?
I did not know that!!
;)
Not bad for a group that broke up 40 years ago.
The Beatles are now in iTunes?!?
I did not know that!!
;)
Not bad for a group that broke up 40 years ago.
Chef Medeski
Aug 24, 04:50 PM
Yes, the numbers match
I WIN
this is better than the lottery. I needed a new battery for the new school year starting monday. Hoooray!
I WIN
this is better than the lottery. I needed a new battery for the new school year starting monday. Hoooray!
krayg
Nov 8, 08:22 AM
hi all, I have been awaiting this update and have now just ordered my new macbook. I am really glad they upgraded the RAM to 1GB on the middle model as I would have been paying for that upgrade anyway. I ordered it through my universities higher education store, so it cost me a total of �775.48 for the stock white 2ghz model, plus an "incase neoprene sleeve". I hope these sleeves provide adequate protection, if not I will have to get something else, I plan to take the laptop to uni with me every day so I am sure it will suffer a few bumps (not if i can help it obviously but accidents happen!). I am glad i didnt order one a couple of weeks ago like i almost did - thought i'd hold off for an update!
iStudentUK
Apr 7, 03:29 PM
*bold emphasis mine
I'm sorry friend, but you aren't understanding the full context of what you are reading. The old testament, in this case Deuteronomy, does not stand alone, but is correctly interpreted in light of the new testament and the fulfillment of the law that Christ accomplished through the incarnation and his death.
God gave the law in the old testament to serve a specific purpose at a specific time to a specific people. From a theological stand point it's purpose was to show that no amount of work or good behavior can bring one to God. The law serves to highlight our separation from God in that none of us can measure up. The wages of sin are death and thus under the law death was the punishment. Under the new covenant Christ's death has paid the price of sin and we no longer need to live under the law.
Where does this guidance come from? Who says the Bible must be interpreted in that way? It seems in a book as complex as the Bible there must be 100s of ways to view it.
So you see, you are guilty of doing what it is you are saying that others are doing. You are picking/choosing a verse out of the old testament and presenting it as if it was a universal command to all believers for all time.
I'm not suggesting the Bible is bad, nor am I suggesting it is good. I'm saying that the Bible is neutral- it can be interpreted in a way that leads to kindness and charity or in a way that leads to hatred and intolerance.
I don't know statistics on this, but I'm very confident that the majority of Christians are "good" people. However, there are some "bad" ones as well. The Westboro Baptist Church comes to mind! Whilst the WBC holds a despicable view, who is to say their interpretation is less well founded?
I'm suggesting that people don't get their morals from the Bible, instead people choose to interpret their Bibles in the way that best fits their view. I think it is no coincidence that so many religions/philosophies have the same basic elements. (Like don't kill, steal, treat others like you would like to be treated...)
Basic human morality is an innate quality- most people are "good" (of course people aren't just good or bad, but you know what I mean!). One of my favourite books is The Selfish Gene (also one of the most important science books in recent history in my opinion) is basically explaining why altruism exists and how it could have evolved. Like I said before, some basic elements of morality has been observed in other primates.
For you to quote Deuteronomy as evidence that the Bible "literally" tells believers today they should stone people is incorrect.
What I'm saying is people interpret the Bible such that they don't have to stone people. Stoning people is immoral by a standard found beyond the Bible.
I don't think we need a structured moral code per se. I don't want argument about how the "Secular Bible" should be interpreted, instead just look at what we, as humans, think is right.
I'm sorry friend, but you aren't understanding the full context of what you are reading. The old testament, in this case Deuteronomy, does not stand alone, but is correctly interpreted in light of the new testament and the fulfillment of the law that Christ accomplished through the incarnation and his death.
God gave the law in the old testament to serve a specific purpose at a specific time to a specific people. From a theological stand point it's purpose was to show that no amount of work or good behavior can bring one to God. The law serves to highlight our separation from God in that none of us can measure up. The wages of sin are death and thus under the law death was the punishment. Under the new covenant Christ's death has paid the price of sin and we no longer need to live under the law.
Where does this guidance come from? Who says the Bible must be interpreted in that way? It seems in a book as complex as the Bible there must be 100s of ways to view it.
So you see, you are guilty of doing what it is you are saying that others are doing. You are picking/choosing a verse out of the old testament and presenting it as if it was a universal command to all believers for all time.
I'm not suggesting the Bible is bad, nor am I suggesting it is good. I'm saying that the Bible is neutral- it can be interpreted in a way that leads to kindness and charity or in a way that leads to hatred and intolerance.
I don't know statistics on this, but I'm very confident that the majority of Christians are "good" people. However, there are some "bad" ones as well. The Westboro Baptist Church comes to mind! Whilst the WBC holds a despicable view, who is to say their interpretation is less well founded?
I'm suggesting that people don't get their morals from the Bible, instead people choose to interpret their Bibles in the way that best fits their view. I think it is no coincidence that so many religions/philosophies have the same basic elements. (Like don't kill, steal, treat others like you would like to be treated...)
Basic human morality is an innate quality- most people are "good" (of course people aren't just good or bad, but you know what I mean!). One of my favourite books is The Selfish Gene (also one of the most important science books in recent history in my opinion) is basically explaining why altruism exists and how it could have evolved. Like I said before, some basic elements of morality has been observed in other primates.
For you to quote Deuteronomy as evidence that the Bible "literally" tells believers today they should stone people is incorrect.
What I'm saying is people interpret the Bible such that they don't have to stone people. Stoning people is immoral by a standard found beyond the Bible.
I don't think we need a structured moral code per se. I don't want argument about how the "Secular Bible" should be interpreted, instead just look at what we, as humans, think is right.
DavidLeblond
May 4, 10:57 PM
Uh, isn't the world in 3D? I mean, we do see in three dimensions, correct? Is this a clever way of saying you are blind?
Yes you see the world in three dimensions.
I only see it in two.
Kind of how you see non 3D movies.
Yes you see the world in three dimensions.
I only see it in two.
Kind of how you see non 3D movies.
jaduffy108
Aug 24, 12:49 PM
I *knew* there was a reason I bought the 17".... :p
thejadedmonkey
May 4, 10:40 PM
I'm sorry, I would buy a iPad 3D, just so I could play Angry Birds in 3D. This coming from someone who vowed never to play nice with the Apple iEcosystem. But if Apple can do it, and HP/Palm and MS are nowhere in sight with their 3D tablets, well... iPad it is I guess.
mohsy90
Apr 17, 09:07 PM
It may not be that they didn't have them, rather they were set aside for being who had already reserved them (the point of reservations).
They were not set aside for reservation. I walked in at 11:00 when they opened and the guy said they never received shipment, so.... they started taking reservations.
They were not set aside for reservation. I walked in at 11:00 when they opened and the guy said they never received shipment, so.... they started taking reservations.
jimN
Nov 8, 07:54 AM
Isn't it only a �30 drop - only done it so that it appears to be under a grand. Its not a significant drop - shame really, because its still so much more than the white one!
Any money off is welcome but yes it is just a cynical drop to create an apparently more attractive price point. However, they dropped the price and increase the ram and HD - if you want the colour you'll pay for it, simple as that (and apple know it)
You want it because you're weak!
Any money off is welcome but yes it is just a cynical drop to create an apparently more attractive price point. However, they dropped the price and increase the ram and HD - if you want the colour you'll pay for it, simple as that (and apple know it)
You want it because you're weak!
PlaceofDis
Nov 27, 02:13 PM
i would like this. i enjoy the beatles and would love to be more easily able to explore their music, and while i might not purchase them all through iTunes getting the previews would be very helpful. :)
Zadillo
Sep 6, 08:26 AM
One thing that strikes me...... doesn't this cause some confusion since Intel uses the "Core 2 Duo" name for both the mobile Merom chips and the desktop Conroe chips? Not that most consumers would know the difference anyway, but it seems like people see "Core 2 Duo" in the desktop iMac, and the assumption would be that it would be the same "Core 2 Duo" processor found in other desktops, not the mobile version.
saidtezel
Mar 8, 11:47 AM
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/659/dsc01464j.jpg
TheMacFeed
Oct 10, 03:46 PM
http://i.imgur.com/qOb1z.jpg
Hows Reach? :D
Hows Reach? :D
M-5
Mar 25, 12:49 PM
Now I'm two updates behind on my iPhone, because I'm still waiting for the 4.3 Jailbreak. Oh well. Nothing too important in this update. I also won't be updating my iPad, because the jailbreak for 4.3 hasn't been released yet either.
Chupa Chupa
Apr 13, 03:39 PM
If it's shipping in June, even June 30, how can it not be near final form? I mean when a developer tells me s/w is "nowhere near final form" I'm thinking early beta at best. But 2.5 months from release (assume June 30) shouldn't it be in the bug testing phases and everything else locked up?
Would this run on a maxed 13" air ok?
It should except where a plugin or feature is GPU intensive and needs a real video card. That is the real Achilles heel of the 13". (I say that as an owner). Motion will run like molasses though.
Would this run on a maxed 13" air ok?
It should except where a plugin or feature is GPU intensive and needs a real video card. That is the real Achilles heel of the 13". (I say that as an owner). Motion will run like molasses though.
No comments:
Post a Comment