Ahheck01
Apr 12, 10:27 AM
The SuperMeet stage show aka FCP (or if **** hits the fan then iMovie Pro) preview begins at 7 pm.
7pm Vegas Time? If so, for others scheduling your availability like me :cool::
Pacific Time: 7:00pm
Mountain Time: 8:00pm
Central Time: 9:00pm
Eastern Time: 10:00pm
7pm Vegas Time? If so, for others scheduling your availability like me :cool::
Pacific Time: 7:00pm
Mountain Time: 8:00pm
Central Time: 9:00pm
Eastern Time: 10:00pm
fs454
Apr 6, 04:32 AM
No, I really think that iMovie is a good example of video-editing software. Did Apple changed FCP's look and feel in the last few years? No! It is outdated, that you have to admit for sure. iMovie has a far more modern UI, which should be adopted by FCP somehow. I didn't mean FCP should lose all its Pro-features. FCP could also adopt the easy way of handling your footage: In iMovie I see what I shot and can quickly add clips to the project without setting in and out points manually. And what about the precision-editor? For one project I abandoned FCP just because it has no precision editor.
I think FCP could learn a lot from iMovie. And if the same man, who created iMovie, is also the chief of the Final Cut Studio Developer Team, it will happen!
precision editor? there are a million bajillion ways to "precision edit" in FCP that are easy and accurate. Just because there's no "one click" flashy UI to go with it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I think FCP could learn a lot from iMovie. And if the same man, who created iMovie, is also the chief of the Final Cut Studio Developer Team, it will happen!
precision editor? there are a million bajillion ways to "precision edit" in FCP that are easy and accurate. Just because there's no "one click" flashy UI to go with it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Carlson-online
Jul 20, 11:47 AM
I remember hearing about how it is possible to make multiple cores act like one (Idon't remember where I heard this). Anyways, whether 8 cores acting separately or together like 1 big processor has an advantage depends on the program you use. If the program is multi-threaded, then the cores acting separately might have the advantage while single threaded apps will have an advantage if the cores are acting like one. However, many apps today won't see that much improvement either way (like a simple calculator, or solitare and word processing).
yes, its known as reverse hyper threading. AMD are working on it
http://www.dvhardware.net/article10901.html
yes, its known as reverse hyper threading. AMD are working on it
http://www.dvhardware.net/article10901.html
Malligator
Mar 31, 04:27 PM
what is this bash apple competitors day?
What is this, "let's go on an Apple fansite and act surpised that it's full of Apple fans" day?
What is this, "let's go on an Apple fansite and act surpised that it's full of Apple fans" day?
gregor.hoch
Apr 6, 11:21 AM
I'm pretty sure you are aware that Apple would use LV CPU in 13", not ULV. That bumps us to 2.3GHz plus Turbo. You have said this yourself too and I already covered the reason in my other post.
This is just a MR article and surprisingly, they don't have much idea about the TDPs. Hopefully they will correct their article so people won't live in confusion.
Hellhammer, can I ask you something about this? There are SB LV and now SB ULV. Both are for laptops and the Macbook Pro 13 has SB LV, right? Or does the Pro has something else? What is the performance difference between an equally clocked ULV and LV?
Thanks!
This is just a MR article and surprisingly, they don't have much idea about the TDPs. Hopefully they will correct their article so people won't live in confusion.
Hellhammer, can I ask you something about this? There are SB LV and now SB ULV. Both are for laptops and the Macbook Pro 13 has SB LV, right? Or does the Pro has something else? What is the performance difference between an equally clocked ULV and LV?
Thanks!
Fotek2001
Aug 7, 03:27 PM
Not a glimpse of the Finder...! :eek:
ryanw
Aug 26, 03:44 AM
I've owned 4 macs.
First a G3 iBook, then a G4 AluBook, then an eMac and now I'm on a G4 iBook.
NEVER had a problem with any of the machines. They have been great. Just to let you know it isn't all bad. I also pay for .mac and have done for 2 years now. I'm happy with it and yes I get spam but the filter is very good and its hardly an issue for me.
If you haven't been reading the comments, it would appear MOST people are complaining about the more recent models. I would agree with most that the Powermac G5's have had serious issues and now recent macbook's... Apple needs to do one of the following ... Higher Quality Assurance testing OR better support cause right now they're missing both.
First a G3 iBook, then a G4 AluBook, then an eMac and now I'm on a G4 iBook.
NEVER had a problem with any of the machines. They have been great. Just to let you know it isn't all bad. I also pay for .mac and have done for 2 years now. I'm happy with it and yes I get spam but the filter is very good and its hardly an issue for me.
If you haven't been reading the comments, it would appear MOST people are complaining about the more recent models. I would agree with most that the Powermac G5's have had serious issues and now recent macbook's... Apple needs to do one of the following ... Higher Quality Assurance testing OR better support cause right now they're missing both.
Boomchukalaka
Apr 6, 03:15 PM
YEP...over 100,000 people bought a Xoom...and clearly half of them will be on this forum telling everybody how much better it is than the iPad...;)
adamfilip
Sep 13, 12:57 PM
A bit pointless given that no software utilises the extra cores yet. But nice to know, I guess.
I'm still getting used to having two cores in my laptop!
No software such as, Cinema 4D, Motion, Aperture, Final Cut Pro etc
I'm still getting used to having two cores in my laptop!
No software such as, Cinema 4D, Motion, Aperture, Final Cut Pro etc
Full of Win
Mar 22, 01:29 PM
Lack of Flash support is the achilles heel of iPad. I hope Jobs gets off his high horse and relents.
Don't hold your breath. There are many words that one can use to describe Steve Jobs, contrite or compromising not being one of them.
Don't hold your breath. There are many words that one can use to describe Steve Jobs, contrite or compromising not being one of them.
Gupster
Apr 7, 10:40 PM
d
skunk
Feb 28, 07:12 PM
2) okay, they can pretend to get marriedNo, you are absolutely wrong., They can get married like any other couple where the laws allow. Marriage is not a special preserve of any religion. You cannot just commandeer it.
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
Cory Bauer
Apr 12, 08:00 PM
Yeah no kidding...they should have taken the "New" off the page at least a year ago.
No kidding, right? Also, fancy meeting you here, Jester :cool:
No kidding, right? Also, fancy meeting you here, Jester :cool:
mccldwll
Apr 27, 08:53 AM
And once again people give Apple a pass for something that is clearly an issue.
You mean to tell me that Apple, a company that seems to release fairly solid software, "neglected" to test that when disabling an option called LOCATION SERVICES, that it actually disabled location checking properly? Are some of you really so Jobsian?
Call a spade a spade. There's no possible chance this was a mistake. They got caught. They should not be given a pass over it. If a user opts to disable Location Services, they were working under the false impression that their location was no longer being tracked. Seems mighty shifty to me. Doesn't matter how much data might have been user-identifiable. This sounds like something Google would do, not Apple.
Please get someone who understands cell technology to explain this to you.
You mean to tell me that Apple, a company that seems to release fairly solid software, "neglected" to test that when disabling an option called LOCATION SERVICES, that it actually disabled location checking properly? Are some of you really so Jobsian?
Call a spade a spade. There's no possible chance this was a mistake. They got caught. They should not be given a pass over it. If a user opts to disable Location Services, they were working under the false impression that their location was no longer being tracked. Seems mighty shifty to me. Doesn't matter how much data might have been user-identifiable. This sounds like something Google would do, not Apple.
Please get someone who understands cell technology to explain this to you.
hexor
Mar 26, 08:03 AM
There is no way this is a GM. The "reporter" is obviously confused. If it was a GM version that means they would be sending it off for duplication soon. Since WWDC is months away this makes no sense.
Dagless
Aug 12, 05:43 AM
GT by Citro?n (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GT_by_Citro?n).
Ooo I have that on GT PSP. Can't remember if it's a collectors edition bonus or whatever, but the ultra annoying thing (which I cannot wrap my head around why they would do this) is some cars cannot be transferred to the PS3 version of the game. Despite the PS3 version having the same cars and then some.
Ooo I have that on GT PSP. Can't remember if it's a collectors edition bonus or whatever, but the ultra annoying thing (which I cannot wrap my head around why they would do this) is some cars cannot be transferred to the PS3 version of the game. Despite the PS3 version having the same cars and then some.
Prom1
Aug 7, 06:52 PM
Excellent SHOW Apple EXCELLENT!
I think I just creamed my shorts.
THATS the last straw NO MORE EXCUSES for not owning a MAC FULL Out.
the piggy bank is now gonna be frugal!
I think I just creamed my shorts.
THATS the last straw NO MORE EXCUSES for not owning a MAC FULL Out.
the piggy bank is now gonna be frugal!
videomaven
Apr 6, 06:08 AM
I'm not trolling, this is an honest question. But isn't a Final Cut pretty much worthless for commercial use without a way to put the results on Blu-Ray?
There are many ways of delivering content other than BluRay. But if one insists, there is a rudimentary BluRay output currently in FCP. Or burn with Toast. Or author in anything from Adobe Encore to high-end PC-based BluRay authoring systems.
While I accept that you are not acting the troll, you do need to learn a bit more about the video/film world.
There are many ways of delivering content other than BluRay. But if one insists, there is a rudimentary BluRay output currently in FCP. Or burn with Toast. Or author in anything from Adobe Encore to high-end PC-based BluRay authoring systems.
While I accept that you are not acting the troll, you do need to learn a bit more about the video/film world.
fabian9
Apr 11, 01:08 PM
"the 3GS also adds support for 7.2 Mbit/s HSDPA allowing faster downlink speeds"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_3GS
Technically he's right.
Technically, I'm right, you can't "add" 3GS, because 3GS isn't a standard. :p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_3GS
Technically he's right.
Technically, I'm right, you can't "add" 3GS, because 3GS isn't a standard. :p
spazzcat
Mar 22, 01:44 PM
Lol. So many kid Apple fanboys.
iOS is clearly outdated if compared to Honeycomb and QNX.
The iPad 2 is nice, but it needs more RAM. Multitasking is just terrible with few RAM and bad OS processes handling.
Multitasking in iOS is sometimes a joke, specially if you're web browsing and using some chat app (like IM+, BeeJive etc.).
I'm glad that RIM and Samsung come with those prices.
Next months will be crucial for me to decide the successor of my iPad 1.
I played with Honeycomb over the weekend on tablet, it's toy....
iOS is clearly outdated if compared to Honeycomb and QNX.
The iPad 2 is nice, but it needs more RAM. Multitasking is just terrible with few RAM and bad OS processes handling.
Multitasking in iOS is sometimes a joke, specially if you're web browsing and using some chat app (like IM+, BeeJive etc.).
I'm glad that RIM and Samsung come with those prices.
Next months will be crucial for me to decide the successor of my iPad 1.
I played with Honeycomb over the weekend on tablet, it's toy....
Stridder44
Nov 28, 09:06 PM
No guys, this sounds like a great idea....*cough*.....
iStudentUK
Apr 11, 11:26 AM
They should stick to the June update each year. I know it may not be their fault but Apple need to keep the iPhone up to date, otherwise they will lose ground. Mobile phones are very competitive.
Consultant
Mar 22, 01:46 PM
It won?t sell because the iPad lines will block the view in store.
Exactly. And that the overpriced 7" RIM playbook basically tried to emulate the Samsung tab.
Exactly. And that the overpriced 7" RIM playbook basically tried to emulate the Samsung tab.
MacinDoc
Mar 22, 02:25 PM
The screen is not 50% smaller. Nice way of making yourself look stupid.
What BaldiMac said. The 3" increase in screen size of the iPad more than doubles the screen's dimensions.
What BaldiMac said. The 3" increase in screen size of the iPad more than doubles the screen's dimensions.
