fblack
Jul 23, 01:06 AM
This rumor has popped up before--and I think it's almost a BETTER use of a large(r) screen than videos. If my music was already in my pocket, and then as an "extra" with no additional bulk I could also have a book to read, that would be very cool.
As with movies, though, I'd prefer a subscription model (and priced low accordingly). I seldom watch the same movie--or read the same book--twice. It's not like music.
Interesting...I love to read, the screen would have to be a good size and sharp, if I can adjust the size of the fonts it might save my eyes. This has possibilities...
They should offer both a subscripion model for you and a straight purchase for me. My books are my resources and I refer to them often. I think academics might like this, provided ITMS doesn't offer only pulp.
As with movies, though, I'd prefer a subscription model (and priced low accordingly). I seldom watch the same movie--or read the same book--twice. It's not like music.
Interesting...I love to read, the screen would have to be a good size and sharp, if I can adjust the size of the fonts it might save my eyes. This has possibilities...
They should offer both a subscripion model for you and a straight purchase for me. My books are my resources and I refer to them often. I think academics might like this, provided ITMS doesn't offer only pulp.
likemyorbs
May 1, 05:44 PM
Any updates from Corvus anyone?
dmbfrontier
Mar 29, 07:52 AM
Just picked up my ipad 2 @ Radio Shack in NYC! They appear to be bundling in the AppleCare. Cant buy without it.
Chundles
Sep 6, 09:09 AM
Isn't a wired keyboard required when initially setting up the computer?
Not for the Apple wireless keyboard.
Not for the Apple wireless keyboard.
maclaptop
May 5, 06:55 PM
So...are you on VZW? Do you actually have a care in this matter, or is it just another way to rant on others?
AT&T still has people on $30 unlimited because they are grandfathered in. So will VZW, if they actually change the plans.
I read my Verizon TOS. Then I called since I am considering adding a line. Unfortunately they don't grandfather their plans. However after I spoke with a supervisor, I understand how they have their data only, structured. It's very smart of them, designed to make money for Verizon, without adding complications for the customer.
In the ten years I've been with them about the only drawback is they do tend to be the most expensive. But you get what you pay for. So now I'm clear that unlimited is month to month and can be eliminated at any time. I'll enjoy it while it lasts.
AT&T still has people on $30 unlimited because they are grandfathered in. So will VZW, if they actually change the plans.
I read my Verizon TOS. Then I called since I am considering adding a line. Unfortunately they don't grandfather their plans. However after I spoke with a supervisor, I understand how they have their data only, structured. It's very smart of them, designed to make money for Verizon, without adding complications for the customer.
In the ten years I've been with them about the only drawback is they do tend to be the most expensive. But you get what you pay for. So now I'm clear that unlimited is month to month and can be eliminated at any time. I'll enjoy it while it lasts.
bobbleheadbob
Mar 28, 06:41 PM
My wife said "no", too. But I said "yes" anyway! ;)
centauratlas
Mar 25, 12:51 PM
Mine shows 593.0 for the iPad - original
614.6MB for iPad 2
666.0 for iPhone 4 (AT&T)
Mine shows 650.2MB...hmmmm interesting
614.6MB for iPad 2
666.0 for iPhone 4 (AT&T)
Mine shows 650.2MB...hmmmm interesting
JAT
Oct 27, 03:57 PM
Is that the verdict on the screw issue?
Yes, it is. The screw has always been there. I will say that ours is no longer flush like it was at first. Brushing your hand over it means you feel the screw whereas in May we could not. So, the screw may be more noticeable if this is true for others, as well. I could see it being very annoying for some.
Yes, it is. The screw has always been there. I will say that ours is no longer flush like it was at first. Brushing your hand over it means you feel the screw whereas in May we could not. So, the screw may be more noticeable if this is true for others, as well. I could see it being very annoying for some.
iJawn108
Sep 4, 12:38 PM
If the nano's are up to 8 gig and come in a pro-like metal i will be buying it. :p
i would kind of like a memron update for the macbooks but i just may wait till santa rosa(cringes, feels painful).
i would kind of like a memron update for the macbooks but i just may wait till santa rosa(cringes, feels painful).
dongmin
Sep 4, 04:05 PM
Don't know if this deserves its own thread but Appleinsider has some juicy bits in its latest rumors. The upshot is that the new movie service will be high enough quality to be viewed in the living room (which I assume to be at least DVD quality). Be warned: most of it smacks of fanboy speculation.
For some time now, published reports have insinuated that Apple and Jobs would be unwilling to launch a movie download service without a wide, touch-screen video iPod player to coincide. But as he reclines with his feet perched on the sprawling Apple boardroom conference table, Jobs is likely enjoying a chuckle or two -- he's been planning something bigger, something better, something everyone will want.
Just as he asserted that consumers are more eager to own their music tracks for 99 cents a piece rather than rent them on a monthly basis, he realizes that few are willing to plunk down ten bucks for a two-hour movie that they'll have to watch with their neck cranked towards a miniature screen resting in the palm of their hand. As someone at the forefront of the motion picture industry, he knows films are designed for the big screen and later adapted for the home living-room theater.
For these reasons, Jobs many months ago commissioned an elite group of Apple engineers to get the ball rolling on an intuitive hardware solution that would more closely tie the company's digital media strategy to the living-room. And so AppleInsider has been told, Apple has been quietly developing a video streaming device that will interface with an updated version of its iTunes jukebox software.
It's arguably been one of the most closely guarded secrets at Apple since the evolution of the first iPod digital music player, which forever altered the landscape of the music industry when it was introduced in October of 2001. Only a select bunch inside Cupertino have heard of the latest device and even fewer have seen it. Therefore, further details are few and far between.
Insiders can only presume the device will take up the form of a video-enabled version of Apple's existing AirPort Express wireless base station, which lets users stream their iTunes music tracks from their computers to their home stereo receivers. It also acts as a wireless 802.11 router and printing hub.
For some time now, published reports have insinuated that Apple and Jobs would be unwilling to launch a movie download service without a wide, touch-screen video iPod player to coincide. But as he reclines with his feet perched on the sprawling Apple boardroom conference table, Jobs is likely enjoying a chuckle or two -- he's been planning something bigger, something better, something everyone will want.
Just as he asserted that consumers are more eager to own their music tracks for 99 cents a piece rather than rent them on a monthly basis, he realizes that few are willing to plunk down ten bucks for a two-hour movie that they'll have to watch with their neck cranked towards a miniature screen resting in the palm of their hand. As someone at the forefront of the motion picture industry, he knows films are designed for the big screen and later adapted for the home living-room theater.
For these reasons, Jobs many months ago commissioned an elite group of Apple engineers to get the ball rolling on an intuitive hardware solution that would more closely tie the company's digital media strategy to the living-room. And so AppleInsider has been told, Apple has been quietly developing a video streaming device that will interface with an updated version of its iTunes jukebox software.
It's arguably been one of the most closely guarded secrets at Apple since the evolution of the first iPod digital music player, which forever altered the landscape of the music industry when it was introduced in October of 2001. Only a select bunch inside Cupertino have heard of the latest device and even fewer have seen it. Therefore, further details are few and far between.
Insiders can only presume the device will take up the form of a video-enabled version of Apple's existing AirPort Express wireless base station, which lets users stream their iTunes music tracks from their computers to their home stereo receivers. It also acts as a wireless 802.11 router and printing hub.
And1ss
Apr 12, 12:07 PM
How about, "we want to invest in the US!"
Sheeeez!
There should be a law that states anytime a US company chooses to manufacture something outside the US, the company must post a clearly-articulated-less-than-25-page document stating AND COMPARING why the US is unable to manufacture said product.
lol.. I seem to get the feeling that you are an anti-outsourcing person. I hope everything you buy in your life is made in the good ol USA. =) <-- I may be wrong. Feel free to correct me.
it's a bit too expensive for companies on the scale of Apple to mass produce in America. Plus, there are so many laws and regulations sanctioned by our great Congress to protect certain industries and whatnot, equating to greater barriers to import inputs for their electronics. This may mean that Apple products might be more expensive than it is now.
Also, American labor unions, in my opinion, can be very disruptive for production. If Apple is struggling to keep up production now, imagine if "the Apple Labor Union for Workers" decided to go on strike for whatever "menial" reason.
Sorry, but the US is no longer comparatively advantageous for labor.
Sheeeez!
There should be a law that states anytime a US company chooses to manufacture something outside the US, the company must post a clearly-articulated-less-than-25-page document stating AND COMPARING why the US is unable to manufacture said product.
lol.. I seem to get the feeling that you are an anti-outsourcing person. I hope everything you buy in your life is made in the good ol USA. =) <-- I may be wrong. Feel free to correct me.
it's a bit too expensive for companies on the scale of Apple to mass produce in America. Plus, there are so many laws and regulations sanctioned by our great Congress to protect certain industries and whatnot, equating to greater barriers to import inputs for their electronics. This may mean that Apple products might be more expensive than it is now.
Also, American labor unions, in my opinion, can be very disruptive for production. If Apple is struggling to keep up production now, imagine if "the Apple Labor Union for Workers" decided to go on strike for whatever "menial" reason.
Sorry, but the US is no longer comparatively advantageous for labor.
itcheroni
Mar 29, 04:10 AM
I don't know about that. Check out #2 ...
� 1543. Reporting requirement (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001543----000-.html)
(a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced�
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth�
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
If the United States were under immediate threat, do you really think the president would have to write a report to congress "setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"?
I think the War Powers Act reaches beyond there needing to be an immediate threat.
But please, correct me if I am wrong.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
� 1543. Reporting requirement (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001543----000-.html)
(a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced�
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth�
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
If the United States were under immediate threat, do you really think the president would have to write a report to congress "setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"?
I think the War Powers Act reaches beyond there needing to be an immediate threat.
But please, correct me if I am wrong.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
Chundles
Apr 11, 01:06 AM
Are you being sarcastic ?
Am I ever NOT? :D
Cheeky buggers those Adobe guys.
Am I ever NOT? :D
Cheeky buggers those Adobe guys.
Lord Blackadder
Apr 26, 03:08 PM
Um, yeah, tell me something i don't know. The question we are pondering is why more blacks live in poor areas with high crime rates than other races.
This is basic history. Beginning in the early 20th century, several waves of black emigration took place from the rural south to industrialized urban centers, primarily in the north. This was known as the "Great Migration" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_(African_American)) (search this on Google Books for plenty of literature on the subject) - this, by the way, also contributed to falling numbers of lynchings by the KKK, because blacks simply fled from areas where such violence was taking place. This was done in order to try and escape Jim Crow as well as find better job opportunities. Just as all minority or immigrant groups do in cities, they tended to concrentrate in the same districts for mutual support. There is nothing specifically "black" about displaced people moving to cities looking for better opportunities. As a group they started at the economic bottom of the barrel, why would be shocked that they their socioeconomic status remains lower than whites, who outnumber them, have far more political and economic power, and have a history of discriminating against them that they is only slowly being reversed?
Well, seeing how blacks commit more violent crimes than whites
That is completely false. (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_43.html)
it seems logical that a white trailer park would be safer than a black ghetto.
First it was "common knowledge", now it's logic. I still see it as an irrelevant, unproven assertion.
Name me one single white gang that you've heard of(and not the KKK, they don't terrorize streets anymore, that's sooo 1960's)
Since when did you get to make the rules? How can we possibly have a useful discussion about race and crime if we can't talk about some of the basic underlying causes for the disparity in wealth and political power in America between white people and everybody else? Why should we forget the 3/5ths clause, Dred Scott, the Civil War, Jim Crow, the Civil Rights movement or the KKK and its children. Not to mention the slave trade that brought these people here in the first place. You might not like to talk about all those things, but you are flat out ignoring or dismissing their impact on current issues - and that is the fatal flaw in your reasoning. Your "ponderings" are based on casual observation and a lack of historical or even contemporary context.
I don't see how the issue can be boiled down to listing gangs either. Do only gangs commit crime? There isn't a shred of evidence out there that white people are any more or less likely to commit crime than any other race, or that white people are inherently more prosperous or law-abiding than any other race. Focusing on race itself is always a red herring when talking about crime. The real reasons lie in the mechanics of interaction between different groups.
It's also worth mentioning that over 70% (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/incidents.html) of hate crimes involve an anti-black bias.
This is basic history. Beginning in the early 20th century, several waves of black emigration took place from the rural south to industrialized urban centers, primarily in the north. This was known as the "Great Migration" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_(African_American)) (search this on Google Books for plenty of literature on the subject) - this, by the way, also contributed to falling numbers of lynchings by the KKK, because blacks simply fled from areas where such violence was taking place. This was done in order to try and escape Jim Crow as well as find better job opportunities. Just as all minority or immigrant groups do in cities, they tended to concrentrate in the same districts for mutual support. There is nothing specifically "black" about displaced people moving to cities looking for better opportunities. As a group they started at the economic bottom of the barrel, why would be shocked that they their socioeconomic status remains lower than whites, who outnumber them, have far more political and economic power, and have a history of discriminating against them that they is only slowly being reversed?
Well, seeing how blacks commit more violent crimes than whites
That is completely false. (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_43.html)
it seems logical that a white trailer park would be safer than a black ghetto.
First it was "common knowledge", now it's logic. I still see it as an irrelevant, unproven assertion.
Name me one single white gang that you've heard of(and not the KKK, they don't terrorize streets anymore, that's sooo 1960's)
Since when did you get to make the rules? How can we possibly have a useful discussion about race and crime if we can't talk about some of the basic underlying causes for the disparity in wealth and political power in America between white people and everybody else? Why should we forget the 3/5ths clause, Dred Scott, the Civil War, Jim Crow, the Civil Rights movement or the KKK and its children. Not to mention the slave trade that brought these people here in the first place. You might not like to talk about all those things, but you are flat out ignoring or dismissing their impact on current issues - and that is the fatal flaw in your reasoning. Your "ponderings" are based on casual observation and a lack of historical or even contemporary context.
I don't see how the issue can be boiled down to listing gangs either. Do only gangs commit crime? There isn't a shred of evidence out there that white people are any more or less likely to commit crime than any other race, or that white people are inherently more prosperous or law-abiding than any other race. Focusing on race itself is always a red herring when talking about crime. The real reasons lie in the mechanics of interaction between different groups.
It's also worth mentioning that over 70% (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/incidents.html) of hate crimes involve an anti-black bias.
mscriv
Apr 7, 11:40 PM
I'm a bit confused. How exactly does the context of the Old Testament point to a triune god? I've done a lot of academic study of the Tanakh in general, and Second Temple Judaism in particular, and I'm at a loss to where in Jewish orthodoxy the idea of a triune god exists.
I'm sorry SuperJudge. I should have worded myself better. What I'm trying to say is that the information presented on the web page that I referenced points to contextual clues that would require one to know the Hebrew language to understand. Additionally, understanding Hebrew history in terms of traditional beliefs and culture is also beneficial when understanding the connections between the old and new testament and hence the old and new covenant. We believe that Christ fulfilled the prophecies of the old testament.
I didn't mean to imply that traditional Jewish belief supports the concept of the trinity. Obviously, it does not as they interpret the old testament as a stand alone without the revelation of the new testament.
I didn't intend to be confusing, just to point out that simply reading the old testament on its own in a modern translation might not bring out all of the nuances that are there in the original language and context.
For answers regarding how the old testament itself does point to a triune God then look at the web page I referenced in my previous post.
I'm sorry SuperJudge. I should have worded myself better. What I'm trying to say is that the information presented on the web page that I referenced points to contextual clues that would require one to know the Hebrew language to understand. Additionally, understanding Hebrew history in terms of traditional beliefs and culture is also beneficial when understanding the connections between the old and new testament and hence the old and new covenant. We believe that Christ fulfilled the prophecies of the old testament.
I didn't mean to imply that traditional Jewish belief supports the concept of the trinity. Obviously, it does not as they interpret the old testament as a stand alone without the revelation of the new testament.
I didn't intend to be confusing, just to point out that simply reading the old testament on its own in a modern translation might not bring out all of the nuances that are there in the original language and context.
For answers regarding how the old testament itself does point to a triune God then look at the web page I referenced in my previous post.
Gimzotoy
Aug 24, 04:47 PM
Sigh. None of the batteries I have for my 12" PowerBook are covered, not even the one that the Apple store recommended I stop using due to the excessive heat (which died 5 days out of warranty and Apple would do nothing about). Sucks.
lostngone
Mar 28, 11:57 PM
It sure would suck if you need matching ID and company credentials to get your pass - like they do with CES. :rolleyes:
From the FAQ:
You will be required to present your passport or other government-issued photo identification before being admitted to WWDC. Please make sure you bring your identification with you, as you will not be admitted without it.
and
Conference badges are not transferable. The full conference fee will be charged to replace a lost badge.
When you register you get an activation code. I think any other Dev can use it because I purchased mine with my MobileMe account and then activated it with my ADC account. Those accounts are not linked as far as I know.
From the FAQ:
You will be required to present your passport or other government-issued photo identification before being admitted to WWDC. Please make sure you bring your identification with you, as you will not be admitted without it.
and
Conference badges are not transferable. The full conference fee will be charged to replace a lost badge.
When you register you get an activation code. I think any other Dev can use it because I purchased mine with my MobileMe account and then activated it with my ADC account. Those accounts are not linked as far as I know.
mfr1340
Mar 28, 01:34 PM
I can't believe they are going to start to sell the ipad2 at radio shack, and they haven't improved on my ship date of 4 to 5 weeks. You would think that they would take care of the ones that allready paid full price for theirs. I guess they need the interest that they are getting by holding on to everyones pre-paid orders through their own apple store.:(:(
mkjj
Nov 27, 11:23 AM
Geez, this is a MONEY LOSER if there ever was one.
I loved the beatles when I was 6.
But, these days who's going to be buying these tracks!!!
Steve must love the Beatles, because this is a gift.
And will hardly be a profitable venture.
What planet do you live on? OK i'm from Liverpool so maybe slightly biased but you need to see how many people visit the city for just one reason, The Beatles. Easy money if they appear on iTunes.
I loved the beatles when I was 6.
But, these days who's going to be buying these tracks!!!
Steve must love the Beatles, because this is a gift.
And will hardly be a profitable venture.
What planet do you live on? OK i'm from Liverpool so maybe slightly biased but you need to see how many people visit the city for just one reason, The Beatles. Easy money if they appear on iTunes.
anomie
Apr 12, 12:25 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
Hahaha made my day.
Truth is: they do not build anything in the US because US-workers are lazy!
Nobody in the Rest of the world would buy their profucts
Hahaha made my day.
Truth is: they do not build anything in the US because US-workers are lazy!
Nobody in the Rest of the world would buy their profucts
NT1440
Mar 29, 10:26 AM
It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent
Yea, nothing to do with the fact that one of our wars was sold to the people under a complete and total (known) lie. That couldn't be anyone's basis for anger and resentment towards the war, it had to be a personal grudge against Bush.
Seriously 5P, do you have any idea what goes on in reality? How many Dems were out there rallying against the Afghan war while Bush was in office (now that public opinion has flipped everyone wants to get out)? That was the "good" war, remember? Saying that the Dems are somehow anti-war is to ignore the history of this nation. Both parties are far more than willing to march to the drum beat of war when it is "in the nation's interest".
Look at the Clinton doctrine for christs sake! It clearly states that it is the position of the USA that it can take unilateral military action anywhere in the world if US interests (or our allies, which pretty much leaves anything open) are threatened. It even specifically mentions using this clause to secure energy access.
Talk all the BS rhetoric you want, but you clearly don't understand the policies of this country are and are little more than a pawn (most of us as well) in the carefully constructed Dems vs. GOP sideshow distraction.
Can you point out any war in history that meets your ivory tower qualifications?
All of them.
The "interests" talking point is so incredibly open ended that literally any action can be considered in relation to it.
Notice how no one ever presses Hillary or Obama (or any politician for that matter) specifically what "interests" they are talking about? The term is used specifically because of the wide open weasel room it provides, and this is well understood by the press who more than willfully participate in the charades.
Yea, nothing to do with the fact that one of our wars was sold to the people under a complete and total (known) lie. That couldn't be anyone's basis for anger and resentment towards the war, it had to be a personal grudge against Bush.
Seriously 5P, do you have any idea what goes on in reality? How many Dems were out there rallying against the Afghan war while Bush was in office (now that public opinion has flipped everyone wants to get out)? That was the "good" war, remember? Saying that the Dems are somehow anti-war is to ignore the history of this nation. Both parties are far more than willing to march to the drum beat of war when it is "in the nation's interest".
Look at the Clinton doctrine for christs sake! It clearly states that it is the position of the USA that it can take unilateral military action anywhere in the world if US interests (or our allies, which pretty much leaves anything open) are threatened. It even specifically mentions using this clause to secure energy access.
Talk all the BS rhetoric you want, but you clearly don't understand the policies of this country are and are little more than a pawn (most of us as well) in the carefully constructed Dems vs. GOP sideshow distraction.
Can you point out any war in history that meets your ivory tower qualifications?
All of them.
The "interests" talking point is so incredibly open ended that literally any action can be considered in relation to it.
Notice how no one ever presses Hillary or Obama (or any politician for that matter) specifically what "interests" they are talking about? The term is used specifically because of the wide open weasel room it provides, and this is well understood by the press who more than willfully participate in the charades.
Northgrove
May 5, 03:15 AM
Time for the headaches.
I feel sorry for you. :( No one I know suffered from headaches from watching 3D movies.
Having said that, I feel hesitant about this... I haven't been impressed especially by the sharpness that fake 3D can offer. Impression of depth is good enough for me, but the sharpness really sucks. 3D so far completely counters everything that we have worked for to get to HD movies in one blow. It's funny how modern 3D TV's have got to 1080p and all, and then backpedals from all that with blurry 3D movies.
I feel sorry for you. :( No one I know suffered from headaches from watching 3D movies.
Having said that, I feel hesitant about this... I haven't been impressed especially by the sharpness that fake 3D can offer. Impression of depth is good enough for me, but the sharpness really sucks. 3D so far completely counters everything that we have worked for to get to HD movies in one blow. It's funny how modern 3D TV's have got to 1080p and all, and then backpedals from all that with blurry 3D movies.
GFLPraxis
Aug 29, 03:01 PM
I don't know what people are fussing about. If these price points are true, Windows Vista is pretty cheap.
Are you joking? The basic $200 one lacks DVD burning, XBox 360 connectivity, media center, the whole new GUI, and searching! Each one has disadvantages, purposely crippled by Microsoft- only the $300 business edition has encryption and backup, remote desktop and multi-processor support (that's right, you need the business for multiple processors- since the lower end models can use multiple cores and are multithreaded, this means Microsoft DELIBERATELY disabled the functionality in the other models), only the $240 Premium edition has DVD burning, slideshows, media center, etc...
They're trying to force you into buying the Ultimate edition.
Frankly, you shouldn't have to spend $400 to get what Apple includes in the BASIC OS.
Are you joking? The basic $200 one lacks DVD burning, XBox 360 connectivity, media center, the whole new GUI, and searching! Each one has disadvantages, purposely crippled by Microsoft- only the $300 business edition has encryption and backup, remote desktop and multi-processor support (that's right, you need the business for multiple processors- since the lower end models can use multiple cores and are multithreaded, this means Microsoft DELIBERATELY disabled the functionality in the other models), only the $240 Premium edition has DVD burning, slideshows, media center, etc...
They're trying to force you into buying the Ultimate edition.
Frankly, you shouldn't have to spend $400 to get what Apple includes in the BASIC OS.
charkshark
Dec 5, 11:34 PM
Finally, All I can say, FINALLY!!
No comments:
Post a Comment