iJohnHenry
Apr 26, 06:56 PM
However, the suggestion that Blacks can somehow gain equality with Whites just by "getting their act together" is totally fallacious.
Is it that easy? I don't think so. Getting their attitude together might be closer.
If their parents are all about denigrating the "system", or the "man", what hope do Black youth have? None.
You can pretty much be anything you want to be, in today's Western culture. But you have to work for it, like everyone else. There is no free ride, just welfare.
Black roll models are everywhere, for Christ's sake. Just apply yourself.
Is it that easy? I don't think so. Getting their attitude together might be closer.
If their parents are all about denigrating the "system", or the "man", what hope do Black youth have? None.
You can pretty much be anything you want to be, in today's Western culture. But you have to work for it, like everyone else. There is no free ride, just welfare.
Black roll models are everywhere, for Christ's sake. Just apply yourself.
Passante
Aug 3, 09:32 AM
From http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/08/followup_to_macbook_post.html
quote
During the course of our interview, it came out that Apple had leaned on Maynor and Ellch pretty hard not to make this an issue about the Mac drivers -- mainly because Apple had not fixed the problem yet. Maynor acknowledged that he used a third-party wireless card in the demo so as not to draw attention to the flaw resident in Macbook drivers. But he also admitted that the same flaws were resident in the default Macbook wireless device drivers, and that those drivers were identically exploitable. And that is what I reported. end quote
Watch what you connect to!
quote
During the course of our interview, it came out that Apple had leaned on Maynor and Ellch pretty hard not to make this an issue about the Mac drivers -- mainly because Apple had not fixed the problem yet. Maynor acknowledged that he used a third-party wireless card in the demo so as not to draw attention to the flaw resident in Macbook drivers. But he also admitted that the same flaws were resident in the default Macbook wireless device drivers, and that those drivers were identically exploitable. And that is what I reported. end quote
Watch what you connect to!
thedude110
Jul 22, 09:27 PM
wouldnt the screen strain the eyes?
Yes. Yes it would.
Until display resolution matches paper resolution, the e-book will remain relatively unpopular.
This does seem to make a serious run at the "iPod for Education" crowd, though -- fighting to keep brand loyalty with the kids, I spose ...
Yes. Yes it would.
Until display resolution matches paper resolution, the e-book will remain relatively unpopular.
This does seem to make a serious run at the "iPod for Education" crowd, though -- fighting to keep brand loyalty with the kids, I spose ...
toddybody
Apr 14, 11:01 AM
I think something that's hugely undersold recently is the extra security. Macs provide better security (no matter how you slice it) and with less nagging. This may not be a big deal to tech-savvy people who know how to protect themselves, but my mom getting a virus on her computer ranks up there with being audited by the IRS.
That kind of stress on a normal user will make them switch and never look back.
Sad part is, as adoption increases...so will viruses/malware/trojans/etc.
Best analogy Ive heard is:
Windows 7 is a house with bars on the windows, and industrial locks on the doors...in Baltimore.
OSX is a house with no locks, in the middle of nowhere.
That kind of stress on a normal user will make them switch and never look back.
Sad part is, as adoption increases...so will viruses/malware/trojans/etc.
Best analogy Ive heard is:
Windows 7 is a house with bars on the windows, and industrial locks on the doors...in Baltimore.
OSX is a house with no locks, in the middle of nowhere.
puckhead193
Sep 14, 11:12 PM
Am I the only one who thinks the multiplayer stinks? (team slayer) :o
There's no guns to switch, the jet pack is a total crap I'll just fly around and you can't shoot me and you can't kill me because there is no rocket launcher or laser. Am I missing something?
There's no guns to switch, the jet pack is a total crap I'll just fly around and you can't shoot me and you can't kill me because there is no rocket launcher or laser. Am I missing something?
mscriv
Apr 11, 11:57 AM
I object to the notion that good deeds I do are due to vanity, pride etc.
No, sorry, you cannot have that one. "Altruistic" does not coincide with "vanity and self glorification". In my filthy heathen state of unsaved gracelessness, I still do things for which my only reward is a smile. And even when I do have an ulterior motive ("you can return the favor at your leisure, to me or to someone else"), how does that detract from my having done well and good by someone else?
I find this statement utterly appalling. Do those who sacrifice themselves for others do so from selfish motives?
I agree. There is so much wrong with the original statement in addition to your point. I consider "goodness" to get your spot in heaven the ultimate in selfishness. Also, what about gods other than Jesus, are the good things performed in their name just as "selfless"?
Ok, good questions and thoughts. Let me explain/expound upon my statement. The bolded part below seems to be what is drawing the most reaction.
An accurate understanding of original sin does not mean that man is completely "evil" in the sense that we are incapable of doing works that would be considered "good" or altruistic. The human spirit is capable of many good things, but without an accurate understanding of who God is and our relationship to him these good works become nothing but acts of vanity and self glorification that serve only to advance pride and promote self-reliance.
I am not speaking about conscious motivation within an individuals actions/behavior, although that could be true as we all know people do at times act out of selfish and prideful intentions.
I'm talking about a theological understanding of man's state before God. For those that do not believe in a higher power or absolute truth, man, in and of himself, is the highest order of existence/being/evolution, etc. etc.. Thus, any and all accomplishments of man ("good works") are then viewed as self evident truths to this proposition. Man's capacity for altruism, self sacrifice, and compassion are seen as proof of his independence from God. "See what we can accomplish on our own... we don't need God." In this manner all of man's action is an act of self glorification and self reliance.
I'm in a "helping profession" and work daily with people who seek to support and serve others. Many do this out of the "goodness of their own heart" and genuinely do not seek any form of return for their efforts. On a human level these actions are noble and sacrificial and I applaud them. However, on a spiritual level, I must recognize that scripture teaches us that our "good deeds" are worthless if our heart is not right with God.
Please understand, this doesn't mean that the positive results of these actions are meaningless. For example, giving food to the homeless is a sacrificial act that does help people in need, but it will in no way earn you "points" with God. The Bible does not teach a theology of works. It's not about what you do, it's about your relationship with Christ.
Again, as I always say, this is ultimately an issue of faith and I completely understand that it can be hard to comprehend for some. And it is a subtle nuance to understand the difference between doing something because you adhere to a set of principles (right vs. wrong) and doing it because it is an outflow of your relationship with God.
It's like I told someone recently in a conversation we were having. I don't stay true to my wife because being unfaithful to her would be the morally wrong thing to do. I could care less about the moral principle of marital faithfulness. My motivation for staying true to my wife is that I have an intimate loving relationship with her and I would never want to hurt her or damage that relationship in any way.
Which takes us into rougher territory. If works are relatively insignificant in the scheme of salvation, your absolute moral code starts to crumble and fall in on itself. For, why should a believer bother to follow it if the saviour is always near at hand to forgive and redeem?
You may not realize it Sydde, but what you are saying is still along the lines of a works based relationship with God and that is not what the Bible teaches. It's not about a revolving door of "messing up" and and then asking for forgiveness. Christ death paid the price in full for all sin (past, present, and future). What matters is the condition of your heart before him and the intimacy of your relationship with him. Within that context are you seeking your own way including your own selfish desires or are you seeking to be the servant leader he wants you to be. The examples you gave in your post were all of people being selfishly motivated for their own gain.
In light of the examples of history (perhaps including those in the bible itself), how can you say that religion has made anyone a better person than they would have been? To me, it looks like religion has made the world a worse place than it might have been without it.
I'd think you would agree that people like Mother Theresa were able to successfully live out their faith with the goal of bringing glory to God while serving others. She's just the first example that pops into my head, but there are countless others. Again, it's not about "religion" making us "better people", that's a selfish manner of thinking. My relationship with God is not about me, it's about him.
"Many people mistake our work for our vocation. Our vocation is the love of Jesus."
"There is always the danger that we may just do the work for the sake of the work. This is where the respect and the love and the devotion come in - that we do it to God, to Christ, and that's why we try to do it as beautifully as possible."
~ Mother Theresa
Every time I hear about how we are naturally selfish and corrupt, I hear the utterer trying to apologize for their own faults by expanding them upon all others. As a counselor, you should be familiar with the mechanism called "projection".
I'm very familiar with projection. I can assure you that is not what's happening here. I'm merely presenting what God has communicated to us through the Bible. Could it be that your skepticism and cynicism is a projection of something within you? Why don't you come over he and lie on this couch and tell me about your mother... ;)
Yet, again, the absolutes get bent. When believers run up against a moral wall that divides them from their goals, they seek the counsel of a cleric. The cleric typically sympathizes with the believer's plight and very often finds a way to interpret the scripture to turn the question to the believer's favor. So you have your absolutes, but they are also flexible. What good then are they, that they can be molded to suit your needs? How is this better than situational ethics (logic, reason and compromise), other than to employ scholars in the service of the almighty?
Well, first of all, "clerics" are not required for us to interpret scripture or have a relationship with God. When Christ was crucified he tore the temple veil representing that his sacrifice has made the way for man to have a direct relationship with God, no human intermediary is required. As far as prooftexting or manipulating scripture for your own personal motives due to a presenting dilemma, well, I'm sure you already know my answer to this based on my previous comments. Scripture stands alone as authoritative regardless of how I "feel" about it or what I "want" it to say. If I'm seeking to find an "exception" in scripture to justify my own position then my heart is not in the right place.
I have had more than a third of a century (from teenage years) to develop my philosophy and unbeliefs, and you are obviously quite steadfast in yours, so yes, there can be little doubt of the mexican stand-off. Does it trouble you? As hoary and mulish as I may be, I still find merit in these discussions, because they draw things out into the light that I had not bothered to look at. You do teach me things, though they are almost certainly not the things you intend. I hope you in some way also benefit, it would be a shame to think this only leads you to despair.
Fret not my friend. I think there is extreme merit in these discussions and I appreciate the respectful way in which many of us here are able to engage each other on such topics.
As far as me being troubled or in "despair" the answer to your question is both yes and no. I do seek to consistently and genuinely live out my faith and thus I do wish to see other's come into relationship with Christ (you know that whole "go ye therefore" thing in the Bible). However, do I judge others and base my entire relationship with them on evangelistic purposes? No. One of the greatest gifts God has given us is free will, in fact, without free will everything we are talking about falls apart. I respect, just as God has designed it to be, that people have the freedom and the ability to reject him and live their life as they see fit. I love, value, relate to, and learn from others regardless of their spiritual beliefs. It would be foolish of me to limit my relationships with people solely on their spirituality or lack thereof. My goal is to accept people as they are, treat them with dignity and respect, and seek out how I might serve or support them in the context of our relationship.
Besides, if I do happen to get down about it, I know a pretty good therapist. ;)
Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to address the questions/comments that had been made. :)
No, sorry, you cannot have that one. "Altruistic" does not coincide with "vanity and self glorification". In my filthy heathen state of unsaved gracelessness, I still do things for which my only reward is a smile. And even when I do have an ulterior motive ("you can return the favor at your leisure, to me or to someone else"), how does that detract from my having done well and good by someone else?
I find this statement utterly appalling. Do those who sacrifice themselves for others do so from selfish motives?
I agree. There is so much wrong with the original statement in addition to your point. I consider "goodness" to get your spot in heaven the ultimate in selfishness. Also, what about gods other than Jesus, are the good things performed in their name just as "selfless"?
Ok, good questions and thoughts. Let me explain/expound upon my statement. The bolded part below seems to be what is drawing the most reaction.
An accurate understanding of original sin does not mean that man is completely "evil" in the sense that we are incapable of doing works that would be considered "good" or altruistic. The human spirit is capable of many good things, but without an accurate understanding of who God is and our relationship to him these good works become nothing but acts of vanity and self glorification that serve only to advance pride and promote self-reliance.
I am not speaking about conscious motivation within an individuals actions/behavior, although that could be true as we all know people do at times act out of selfish and prideful intentions.
I'm talking about a theological understanding of man's state before God. For those that do not believe in a higher power or absolute truth, man, in and of himself, is the highest order of existence/being/evolution, etc. etc.. Thus, any and all accomplishments of man ("good works") are then viewed as self evident truths to this proposition. Man's capacity for altruism, self sacrifice, and compassion are seen as proof of his independence from God. "See what we can accomplish on our own... we don't need God." In this manner all of man's action is an act of self glorification and self reliance.
I'm in a "helping profession" and work daily with people who seek to support and serve others. Many do this out of the "goodness of their own heart" and genuinely do not seek any form of return for their efforts. On a human level these actions are noble and sacrificial and I applaud them. However, on a spiritual level, I must recognize that scripture teaches us that our "good deeds" are worthless if our heart is not right with God.
Please understand, this doesn't mean that the positive results of these actions are meaningless. For example, giving food to the homeless is a sacrificial act that does help people in need, but it will in no way earn you "points" with God. The Bible does not teach a theology of works. It's not about what you do, it's about your relationship with Christ.
Again, as I always say, this is ultimately an issue of faith and I completely understand that it can be hard to comprehend for some. And it is a subtle nuance to understand the difference between doing something because you adhere to a set of principles (right vs. wrong) and doing it because it is an outflow of your relationship with God.
It's like I told someone recently in a conversation we were having. I don't stay true to my wife because being unfaithful to her would be the morally wrong thing to do. I could care less about the moral principle of marital faithfulness. My motivation for staying true to my wife is that I have an intimate loving relationship with her and I would never want to hurt her or damage that relationship in any way.
Which takes us into rougher territory. If works are relatively insignificant in the scheme of salvation, your absolute moral code starts to crumble and fall in on itself. For, why should a believer bother to follow it if the saviour is always near at hand to forgive and redeem?
You may not realize it Sydde, but what you are saying is still along the lines of a works based relationship with God and that is not what the Bible teaches. It's not about a revolving door of "messing up" and and then asking for forgiveness. Christ death paid the price in full for all sin (past, present, and future). What matters is the condition of your heart before him and the intimacy of your relationship with him. Within that context are you seeking your own way including your own selfish desires or are you seeking to be the servant leader he wants you to be. The examples you gave in your post were all of people being selfishly motivated for their own gain.
In light of the examples of history (perhaps including those in the bible itself), how can you say that religion has made anyone a better person than they would have been? To me, it looks like religion has made the world a worse place than it might have been without it.
I'd think you would agree that people like Mother Theresa were able to successfully live out their faith with the goal of bringing glory to God while serving others. She's just the first example that pops into my head, but there are countless others. Again, it's not about "religion" making us "better people", that's a selfish manner of thinking. My relationship with God is not about me, it's about him.
"Many people mistake our work for our vocation. Our vocation is the love of Jesus."
"There is always the danger that we may just do the work for the sake of the work. This is where the respect and the love and the devotion come in - that we do it to God, to Christ, and that's why we try to do it as beautifully as possible."
~ Mother Theresa
Every time I hear about how we are naturally selfish and corrupt, I hear the utterer trying to apologize for their own faults by expanding them upon all others. As a counselor, you should be familiar with the mechanism called "projection".
I'm very familiar with projection. I can assure you that is not what's happening here. I'm merely presenting what God has communicated to us through the Bible. Could it be that your skepticism and cynicism is a projection of something within you? Why don't you come over he and lie on this couch and tell me about your mother... ;)
Yet, again, the absolutes get bent. When believers run up against a moral wall that divides them from their goals, they seek the counsel of a cleric. The cleric typically sympathizes with the believer's plight and very often finds a way to interpret the scripture to turn the question to the believer's favor. So you have your absolutes, but they are also flexible. What good then are they, that they can be molded to suit your needs? How is this better than situational ethics (logic, reason and compromise), other than to employ scholars in the service of the almighty?
Well, first of all, "clerics" are not required for us to interpret scripture or have a relationship with God. When Christ was crucified he tore the temple veil representing that his sacrifice has made the way for man to have a direct relationship with God, no human intermediary is required. As far as prooftexting or manipulating scripture for your own personal motives due to a presenting dilemma, well, I'm sure you already know my answer to this based on my previous comments. Scripture stands alone as authoritative regardless of how I "feel" about it or what I "want" it to say. If I'm seeking to find an "exception" in scripture to justify my own position then my heart is not in the right place.
I have had more than a third of a century (from teenage years) to develop my philosophy and unbeliefs, and you are obviously quite steadfast in yours, so yes, there can be little doubt of the mexican stand-off. Does it trouble you? As hoary and mulish as I may be, I still find merit in these discussions, because they draw things out into the light that I had not bothered to look at. You do teach me things, though they are almost certainly not the things you intend. I hope you in some way also benefit, it would be a shame to think this only leads you to despair.
Fret not my friend. I think there is extreme merit in these discussions and I appreciate the respectful way in which many of us here are able to engage each other on such topics.
As far as me being troubled or in "despair" the answer to your question is both yes and no. I do seek to consistently and genuinely live out my faith and thus I do wish to see other's come into relationship with Christ (you know that whole "go ye therefore" thing in the Bible). However, do I judge others and base my entire relationship with them on evangelistic purposes? No. One of the greatest gifts God has given us is free will, in fact, without free will everything we are talking about falls apart. I respect, just as God has designed it to be, that people have the freedom and the ability to reject him and live their life as they see fit. I love, value, relate to, and learn from others regardless of their spiritual beliefs. It would be foolish of me to limit my relationships with people solely on their spirituality or lack thereof. My goal is to accept people as they are, treat them with dignity and respect, and seek out how I might serve or support them in the context of our relationship.
Besides, if I do happen to get down about it, I know a pretty good therapist. ;)
Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to address the questions/comments that had been made. :)
steezy1337
Oct 15, 09:02 PM
Here's my setup. Monitor on left and top are used for work. The vertical monitor is used for browsing forums.
*image*
woah that's a lot of screen space! Mind if I ask what your running the screens from and screen sizes?
*image*
woah that's a lot of screen space! Mind if I ask what your running the screens from and screen sizes?
SimonMW
Apr 14, 08:46 AM
All I care about right now is if this will run on a Mac pro 1,1. And if so, and it is using all cores finally, will there be a big performance increase on my system over my current FCP6.
If the answer is yes to both I'm in. I won't be impressed however if they artificially lock out older Macs.
If the answer is yes to both I'm in. I won't be impressed however if they artificially lock out older Macs.
AidenShaw
Sep 6, 08:32 AM
I'm guessing you mean 3Gbps...
Apple likes firewire, they made it. eSATA is nice, but you can't daisy chain the drives. That's why I like firewire so much.
I meant 3000 Mbps, thanks for pointing out the typo.
Apple likes firewire, they made it. eSATA is nice, but you can't daisy chain the drives. That's why I like firewire so much.
I meant 3000 Mbps, thanks for pointing out the typo.
gekko513
Aug 2, 09:34 PM
bad news. I better tell my girlfriend. How many macbooks does this affect? All of them?
None, it would seem.
None, it would seem.
Brandon Sharitt
Sep 4, 06:57 AM
The following is just me personal guesses as too updates to Apples hardware over the next 6 months or so, with a few coming on the 12th and most by the end of the year.
MacBook Pros updated to Core 2 Duos is a no brainer, though I'm not sure if they'd launch it at such and event, but still possible since it is a bit more than speed bump, and you know Steve would want to brag about his new 64-bit PowerBooks.
Also, the iMacs seem to be in the same boat processor wise, though which Core 2 Duo isn't quite as obvious of a choice. If they could fit a G5 in the form factor, it seems reasonable that they could get Conroe in there too, but Merom would let it run cooler. Considering the large gap between the Mac mini and Mac Pro, a 23" iMac would just make sense, unless the much hoped for Conroe based mid tower was released, though that a lot less likely than a 23" iMac, or even a 30" iMac, so don't hold your breath.
MacBooks, don't hold your breath, possibly price drops to get it to $999 again since Yonah prices have come down since launch, but don't expect a Core 2 Duo any time soon. The MacBook is already eating the MacBook Pro's launch due to the similar specs, so the Core 2 is likely to be the MacBook Pro advantage.
Like the MacBook, the Mac mini could see drops back down to G4 levels, and I would discount the Core Duos across the line, but again, don't look for the Core 2 Duo anytime soon.
As for iPods, I would expect the touch screen Video iPod to come out in time for the holiday season, though maybe not on the 12th. The reason being to compete with the Zune and the fact that there finally seems to be a deal about a movie store. As for the regular iPod, probably 40GB and 80GB versions at the current prices, with a slim chance at a 60GB model at $349. As for the nano, probably doubling of storage on all models(2GB, 4GB, 8GB) at the same price points. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 1GB nano at around $129 either. As for the shuffle, if it survives, 512MB at $49 and 1GB at around $79 or so.
MacBook Pros updated to Core 2 Duos is a no brainer, though I'm not sure if they'd launch it at such and event, but still possible since it is a bit more than speed bump, and you know Steve would want to brag about his new 64-bit PowerBooks.
Also, the iMacs seem to be in the same boat processor wise, though which Core 2 Duo isn't quite as obvious of a choice. If they could fit a G5 in the form factor, it seems reasonable that they could get Conroe in there too, but Merom would let it run cooler. Considering the large gap between the Mac mini and Mac Pro, a 23" iMac would just make sense, unless the much hoped for Conroe based mid tower was released, though that a lot less likely than a 23" iMac, or even a 30" iMac, so don't hold your breath.
MacBooks, don't hold your breath, possibly price drops to get it to $999 again since Yonah prices have come down since launch, but don't expect a Core 2 Duo any time soon. The MacBook is already eating the MacBook Pro's launch due to the similar specs, so the Core 2 is likely to be the MacBook Pro advantage.
Like the MacBook, the Mac mini could see drops back down to G4 levels, and I would discount the Core Duos across the line, but again, don't look for the Core 2 Duo anytime soon.
As for iPods, I would expect the touch screen Video iPod to come out in time for the holiday season, though maybe not on the 12th. The reason being to compete with the Zune and the fact that there finally seems to be a deal about a movie store. As for the regular iPod, probably 40GB and 80GB versions at the current prices, with a slim chance at a 60GB model at $349. As for the nano, probably doubling of storage on all models(2GB, 4GB, 8GB) at the same price points. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 1GB nano at around $129 either. As for the shuffle, if it survives, 512MB at $49 and 1GB at around $79 or so.
timuster
Mar 15, 02:43 PM
I used to work at an apple store until Christmas and we were always the last to know things, we found out when the public found out eg the iMac launch, that's why they don't have the new stuff in stores the day it's announced, it stays in the back with someone who's signed a non disclosure agreement.
I'm so glad you said that ! ;)
I'm so glad you said that ! ;)
sierra oscar
Nov 8, 08:43 AM
au shop is now up!
Apple Picker
Mar 28, 01:48 PM
Great, another store that carries iPad 2 but won't ever have any in stock. LOL.
Unfortunately I think 80% of iPad 2 supply is going to scalpers and resellers, the moment Apple stores get them in stock they sell out and craigslist is then flooded with heavily marked up iPads. It's kind of ridiculous.
On a related note, isn't it a bit weird Apple hasn't announced any sales figures yet? They're usually quick to brag when devices hit a million sales in a short amount of time.
They can't come up with a million sales yet because they were not able to produce the units before they launch it. That's why there is short supply on stores and people can't have it ASAP.
It's like apple is "testing the water before they cross the river".
They made the supply low so it will look like it is really on demand. and make the people drooling waiting.
If they will come up with the number, probably it's made up!
Unfortunately I think 80% of iPad 2 supply is going to scalpers and resellers, the moment Apple stores get them in stock they sell out and craigslist is then flooded with heavily marked up iPads. It's kind of ridiculous.
On a related note, isn't it a bit weird Apple hasn't announced any sales figures yet? They're usually quick to brag when devices hit a million sales in a short amount of time.
They can't come up with a million sales yet because they were not able to produce the units before they launch it. That's why there is short supply on stores and people can't have it ASAP.
It's like apple is "testing the water before they cross the river".
They made the supply low so it will look like it is really on demand. and make the people drooling waiting.
If they will come up with the number, probably it's made up!
nydoofus
Aug 24, 01:06 PM
Just to clarify, there are TWO battery recalls, one from a while ago, and one announced today.
The one announced today is located here
https://support.apple.com/ibook_powerbook/batteryexchange/index.html
The previous one is located here
https://depot.info.apple.com/batteryexchange/index.html
Do not confuse the two!!!
The one announced today is located here
https://support.apple.com/ibook_powerbook/batteryexchange/index.html
The previous one is located here
https://depot.info.apple.com/batteryexchange/index.html
Do not confuse the two!!!
PCtoMAC?
Sep 8, 03:15 PM
Just pre-ordered the other day. Should be fun. I've only ever played the Halo games so it will be cool to get a little more backstory about the Halo universe.
briansolomon
Aug 8, 01:04 PM
Does anyone else find it strange/ridiculous that AirPort Express and Bluetooth come standard on every system except the high end Mac Pro?
Porco
Apr 2, 05:02 AM
It's true that a high megapixel count is not anything like the most important factor about a camera, but everything else being equal more megapixels is better than fewer megapixels. I seriously doubt Apple is going to add megapixels just for the number on the specs list.
Why are you comparing the users? A good comparison would be the same user (good or bad) using different cameras/mobiles to take photographs.
I don't understand your argument.
I think the point is that the technical specs of a photo, and the camera it was taken on, can't make a badly lit, poorly composed photo a good one, and (within reason) can't totally destroy the work of a good photographer who knows what they are doing but only had access to a 'lesser' camera.
Another way of looking at it might be that Leonardo da Vinci could do more impressive work with a pencil and paper than many people could do with a studio full of photoshop artists.
Why are you comparing the users? A good comparison would be the same user (good or bad) using different cameras/mobiles to take photographs.
I don't understand your argument.
I think the point is that the technical specs of a photo, and the camera it was taken on, can't make a badly lit, poorly composed photo a good one, and (within reason) can't totally destroy the work of a good photographer who knows what they are doing but only had access to a 'lesser' camera.
Another way of looking at it might be that Leonardo da Vinci could do more impressive work with a pencil and paper than many people could do with a studio full of photoshop artists.
mkrishnan
Aug 3, 08:34 PM
I wonder if this is a specific to X86 hardware... Does this effect ppc based hardware?
These options have always been there, but I'm not sure they're sufficient to divert this type of exploit (assuming it exists/works, since people are arguing fervently that it's a hoax). The way I understand it, a WiFi device looking to join a network is doing active sensing even when it will only join preferred networks -- this pretty much must be true, since it can join a preferred hidden network, which is not itself broadcasting its availability. So the problem comes when a malevolent entity responds to the ping that the WiFi card puts out. I'm not sure just telling your computer to not join open networks would make any difference at that level. For instance, in analogy, with the BT exploit, one was not required to pair with the device propagating the virus -- just be discoverable.
These options have always been there, but I'm not sure they're sufficient to divert this type of exploit (assuming it exists/works, since people are arguing fervently that it's a hoax). The way I understand it, a WiFi device looking to join a network is doing active sensing even when it will only join preferred networks -- this pretty much must be true, since it can join a preferred hidden network, which is not itself broadcasting its availability. So the problem comes when a malevolent entity responds to the ping that the WiFi card puts out. I'm not sure just telling your computer to not join open networks would make any difference at that level. For instance, in analogy, with the BT exploit, one was not required to pair with the device propagating the virus -- just be discoverable.
balabab
Nov 27, 02:40 AM
Apple should bundle the ClickToFlash plug-in into Mobile Safari. It prevents flash from running unless you really want it to run. This should address, in part, Apple's stated reason for not allowing flash (battery drain and stability) as the user would only enable it for those parts of the web that they really want to see.
And, while they are at it, they should enable file uploads in Mobile Safari to upload photos and videos.
I hate only being able to use part of the internet on my iPhone when there is no technical reason I shouldn't be able to do both Flash on demand and file uploads.
Give this man/woman/fish (*delete as applicable*) a prize. In a nutshell, this is precisely why Adobe Flash isn't available on the iPhone - Adobe have never been able to make it work under OS X. I have a 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro and Flash consumes approximately 120% processor time just to playback a low-resolution YouTube video. Under no circumstances would I want to bring code that requires so much resources to do so little to a mobile device. Can you imagine what this would do to your browsing experience and battery life?
I have a lot against Adobe Flash but it is a fact of life and therefore I would like access to Flash content on the iPhone but it has to be done in a way that is appropriate and, right now, I have absolutely no faith that Adobe has a solution that wouldn't destroy the user experience.
And, while they are at it, they should enable file uploads in Mobile Safari to upload photos and videos.
I hate only being able to use part of the internet on my iPhone when there is no technical reason I shouldn't be able to do both Flash on demand and file uploads.
Give this man/woman/fish (*delete as applicable*) a prize. In a nutshell, this is precisely why Adobe Flash isn't available on the iPhone - Adobe have never been able to make it work under OS X. I have a 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro and Flash consumes approximately 120% processor time just to playback a low-resolution YouTube video. Under no circumstances would I want to bring code that requires so much resources to do so little to a mobile device. Can you imagine what this would do to your browsing experience and battery life?
I have a lot against Adobe Flash but it is a fact of life and therefore I would like access to Flash content on the iPhone but it has to be done in a way that is appropriate and, right now, I have absolutely no faith that Adobe has a solution that wouldn't destroy the user experience.
rovex
May 5, 03:41 AM
Retina over 3D anyday, And by that i mean Retina first before 3D.
ljonesj
Oct 9, 09:40 PM
i just got a macbook pro 13in this morning at bestbuy i love this trying to get some new setup for it as it used my mac mini's time machine which helped
Legion93
May 5, 02:26 PM
I would prefer a retina display or twice the pixel resolution as the current iPad 2 over 3D.
peterjhill
Jul 23, 12:45 AM
http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/06/sony-reader-details-and-pics/
I have been waiting for the release of Sony's product. As a network engineer, I would love to download all of Cisco's PDF release notes and command references and have them at hand. I would also be able to upload pdfs of network maps. Plus it will be able to deal with RSS feeds, so I could subscribe to NYT feeds and have a personal newspaper.
If the ipod can top the ereader, it will drive sony crazy.
I have been waiting for the release of Sony's product. As a network engineer, I would love to download all of Cisco's PDF release notes and command references and have them at hand. I would also be able to upload pdfs of network maps. Plus it will be able to deal with RSS feeds, so I could subscribe to NYT feeds and have a personal newspaper.
If the ipod can top the ereader, it will drive sony crazy.
No comments:
Post a Comment