snberk103
Mar 19, 04:59 PM
Auto is a good place to start, but DON'T BE AFRAID to use full manual 'M'. I have never shoot anything other full manual, except when I was using my camera to take snap shots of stuff I was selling on eBay, FM, CL, etc.
With digital nowadays, it doesn't cost anything to learn! I am not that old, but I learned with film. My first film body was an EOS 650 and then I quickly snatched up two more (an Elan 7NE and an EOS-3), due to it being film. You were "stuck" at whatever the film was, and so I had three bodies out of convenience, if you will. So one body had Velvia RVP 50, one had Neopan and the other had like Reala. Those were the days (like 2002 or something). .
I say this all the time, but I still have " A Film state of mind". In that, I mean I shoot like I still use film. I pre-vision what I want to convey onto "film", thus it slows up my shooting. I guess all the $$$$ I spent on developing and such (buying a CoolScan IV ED scanner, etc to get it onto the computer) sticks with me.
Point is just go out and shoot. I really up until a year or so ago shot landscapes primarily. I used a Rokinon (Vivitar/Samyang,Bower/etc) 85mm 1.4 and it opened up my eyes to different styles, and thus I am venturing into different subjects. Nothing makes up for experience and trial and errors. Understanding how one setting is in relation to the other will greatly help you!
I agree with most of what you say, except.... I don't get the "Shoot only Full Manual" advice that is heard here and in other places.
If I have spent some $$ on a camera with a computer and a light meter, I figure I'm going to make it do at some of the work. The way I see it, I have a management job, and that is to decide what DoF and/or apparent motion I want to capture (composition) - and to ensure good exposure (quality control). The camera gets to do the grunt work of doing the calculations. It's the back-office.
Generally I use Aperture Priority, and let the camera worry itself over the shutter speed. Though, being the suspicious boss type, I'm always checking over the Camera's work and watching the settings. That way I can step in and make changes if necessary.
I figure I'm thinking through the cycle anyway. I like DoF control, so I generally start with Av. I observe the shutter speed - make sure I'm fast enough if I'm handholding, or perhaps I want to freeze or blur something. (Or if I'm on a tripod can I get away with triggering with a light finger or do I need to go to a timer or cable release).
Then I observe the overall exposure. Do I need to adjust the +/- thingy?
I guess it's the difference between :
Think -> Look -> Think -> Make a Setting -> Push Button (Manual)
Think -> Look -> Adjust if necessary -> Push Button (Av or Tv).
Seems faster my way, and just as accurate. And maybe more accurate if I'm tired. ... but maybe I'm missing something?
I'm really enjoying this whole thread..... :)
With digital nowadays, it doesn't cost anything to learn! I am not that old, but I learned with film. My first film body was an EOS 650 and then I quickly snatched up two more (an Elan 7NE and an EOS-3), due to it being film. You were "stuck" at whatever the film was, and so I had three bodies out of convenience, if you will. So one body had Velvia RVP 50, one had Neopan and the other had like Reala. Those were the days (like 2002 or something). .
I say this all the time, but I still have " A Film state of mind". In that, I mean I shoot like I still use film. I pre-vision what I want to convey onto "film", thus it slows up my shooting. I guess all the $$$$ I spent on developing and such (buying a CoolScan IV ED scanner, etc to get it onto the computer) sticks with me.
Point is just go out and shoot. I really up until a year or so ago shot landscapes primarily. I used a Rokinon (Vivitar/Samyang,Bower/etc) 85mm 1.4 and it opened up my eyes to different styles, and thus I am venturing into different subjects. Nothing makes up for experience and trial and errors. Understanding how one setting is in relation to the other will greatly help you!
I agree with most of what you say, except.... I don't get the "Shoot only Full Manual" advice that is heard here and in other places.
If I have spent some $$ on a camera with a computer and a light meter, I figure I'm going to make it do at some of the work. The way I see it, I have a management job, and that is to decide what DoF and/or apparent motion I want to capture (composition) - and to ensure good exposure (quality control). The camera gets to do the grunt work of doing the calculations. It's the back-office.
Generally I use Aperture Priority, and let the camera worry itself over the shutter speed. Though, being the suspicious boss type, I'm always checking over the Camera's work and watching the settings. That way I can step in and make changes if necessary.
I figure I'm thinking through the cycle anyway. I like DoF control, so I generally start with Av. I observe the shutter speed - make sure I'm fast enough if I'm handholding, or perhaps I want to freeze or blur something. (Or if I'm on a tripod can I get away with triggering with a light finger or do I need to go to a timer or cable release).
Then I observe the overall exposure. Do I need to adjust the +/- thingy?
I guess it's the difference between :
Think -> Look -> Think -> Make a Setting -> Push Button (Manual)
Think -> Look -> Adjust if necessary -> Push Button (Av or Tv).
Seems faster my way, and just as accurate. And maybe more accurate if I'm tired. ... but maybe I'm missing something?
I'm really enjoying this whole thread..... :)
Imbalance
Oct 26, 05:29 PM
Well I managed to pickup Leopard & a tshirt from Regent st. It was pretty mad in there. I took some shots with my Nikon + sigma 30mm f1.4 but I've yet to process them.
It was fun waiting around if only to see the hordes of people and interest in what is... a software update. :rolleyes:
It was fun waiting around if only to see the hordes of people and interest in what is... a software update. :rolleyes:
.jpg "amor corazones. fondos de amor")
SwiftLives
Jun 10, 01:19 PM
Those of you hoping for T-Mobile should do a little bit of research into Mr. Wu's track record in Apple predictions.
MacNut
Mar 26, 02:57 PM
http://www.connecticutgasprices.com/tax_info.aspx
According to this its 25 cents per gallon of gas, with an additional 5% sales tax....:confused:I thought it was higher than that.
Connecticut levies a 6% general sales or use tax on consumers, above the national median of 5.85%. In 2007 combined state and local general and selective sales tax collections were $1,424 per person, which ranked 21st highest nationally. Connecticut's gasoline tax stands at 41.9 cents per gallon (4th highest nationally), while its cigarette tax stands at $3.00 per pack of twenty (2nd highest). Additionally, Connecticut levies a 5.8% gross receipts earnings tax on oil companies, which is collected at wholesale. The sales tax was adopted in 1947, the gasoline tax in 1921 and the cigarette tax in 1935.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/17.html
According to this its 25 cents per gallon of gas, with an additional 5% sales tax....:confused:I thought it was higher than that.
Connecticut levies a 6% general sales or use tax on consumers, above the national median of 5.85%. In 2007 combined state and local general and selective sales tax collections were $1,424 per person, which ranked 21st highest nationally. Connecticut's gasoline tax stands at 41.9 cents per gallon (4th highest nationally), while its cigarette tax stands at $3.00 per pack of twenty (2nd highest). Additionally, Connecticut levies a 5.8% gross receipts earnings tax on oil companies, which is collected at wholesale. The sales tax was adopted in 1947, the gasoline tax in 1921 and the cigarette tax in 1935.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/17.html
more...
scem0
May 6, 08:09 PM
PCs are great. Macs, IMO, are better, but that is just opinion.
I am definitely not a mac bigot. I am a person who has used
both platforms extensively, have weighed their pro's and con's,
and like a mac more. I am currently running on a PC because
I couldn't afford a mac, which btw is the biggest downside to
macs - affordability. Does SJ really think that a 16 year old who
has to pay for his own computer will be able to afford a mac?
Yes, PCs are cheap (my computer is a testament to that), but
they are anything but perfect. The same goes for mac (well,
the anything but perfect part ;)).
Arguing which is better is stupid, pointless, and impossible. For
reasons like:
* There is no right or wrong opinion
* It depends what you grew up using
* Both have advantages to different people with different occupations
* Both have pro's and con's.
And mac users who say ignorant things because of their zealotry
annoy me just as much, if not more, than they do you, and vice
versa. As long as you acknowledge that both options have their
advantages, and both are better for different people, then I have
no problem. :)
I am definitely not a mac bigot. I am a person who has used
both platforms extensively, have weighed their pro's and con's,
and like a mac more. I am currently running on a PC because
I couldn't afford a mac, which btw is the biggest downside to
macs - affordability. Does SJ really think that a 16 year old who
has to pay for his own computer will be able to afford a mac?
Yes, PCs are cheap (my computer is a testament to that), but
they are anything but perfect. The same goes for mac (well,
the anything but perfect part ;)).
Arguing which is better is stupid, pointless, and impossible. For
reasons like:
* There is no right or wrong opinion
* It depends what you grew up using
* Both have advantages to different people with different occupations
* Both have pro's and con's.
And mac users who say ignorant things because of their zealotry
annoy me just as much, if not more, than they do you, and vice
versa. As long as you acknowledge that both options have their
advantages, and both are better for different people, then I have
no problem. :)
.jpg "amor corazones.")
jephrey
Oct 26, 04:20 PM
I can see why they'd do it with a "new" program, but SE16 was my audio editing prog of choice even having to open OS9 to use it. Finally, soundstudio came around and went multi track, and although I like it, the bit view in SE16 was priceless for what I do, and that thing saved and opened files in a snap.
Even though it's new, I still had hoped that UBs would be the norm for new stuff for longer, especially from someone like Adobe. I got my G5 in mid 04 and had hoped to have it for 8 years. Looks like it'll be more like the 4 years I had ye olde G3 for. Maybe I can squeeze more out of it, but we'll see.
Whatever,
J
Even though it's new, I still had hoped that UBs would be the norm for new stuff for longer, especially from someone like Adobe. I got my G5 in mid 04 and had hoped to have it for 8 years. Looks like it'll be more like the 4 years I had ye olde G3 for. Maybe I can squeeze more out of it, but we'll see.
Whatever,
J
more...
thisisahughes
Apr 14, 01:22 PM
I rated Negative, so should you. Please, move to Page 2.
remmy
Dec 17, 08:46 AM
Explain how it's adding unpredictability if we're being told what song to buy, to get to No.1? By my definition that's the complete opposite of unpredictable.
If it's "just some fun" then that's a different story...but it's not. It's about people getting all whinny because they think Simon Cowell is taking over the music industry, and leading us like sheep to make his song's No.1. If you don't like the damn XFactor songs then quite rightly don't buy them! Buy what you want to become No.1. But when when people deliberately try and manipulate the results, thinking it will "teach that man a lesson", it becomes less about the music and more about some stupid battle with Simon Cowell!
The song I want to see at No.1 is the song that I like most at that particular time, not the song that I think will give the best metaphorical finger to Mr. Cowell.
Even if lots of people do by either track we do not know who is going to get the most. I would guess its still likely to be the x-factor finalist. Do you know who it will be, are you 100% put your life savings on it certain. If it was only X-factor then it would be certainty isnt it? Because there would only be 1 song in the race.
more...
corazones y amor. amor corazon
corazones y amor. corazones
more...
corazones de amor gratis
corazones de amor
more...
.jpg "amor corazones")
amor corazones
Corazones De Amor. amor
more...
imagenes de corazones de amor.
corazones de amor. amor
more...
imagenes de corazones de amor.
corazones de amor para dibujar
amor corazones.
If it's "just some fun" then that's a different story...but it's not. It's about people getting all whinny because they think Simon Cowell is taking over the music industry, and leading us like sheep to make his song's No.1. If you don't like the damn XFactor songs then quite rightly don't buy them! Buy what you want to become No.1. But when when people deliberately try and manipulate the results, thinking it will "teach that man a lesson", it becomes less about the music and more about some stupid battle with Simon Cowell!
The song I want to see at No.1 is the song that I like most at that particular time, not the song that I think will give the best metaphorical finger to Mr. Cowell.
Even if lots of people do by either track we do not know who is going to get the most. I would guess its still likely to be the x-factor finalist. Do you know who it will be, are you 100% put your life savings on it certain. If it was only X-factor then it would be certainty isnt it? Because there would only be 1 song in the race.
more...
VulchR
Mar 25, 06:59 PM
...And the "until you've been there" argument is BS too. Do I need to first be a paedophile before denouncing paedophilia?
....
Wow. Your logic here is inescapable. What is it you're denouncing exactly?
....
Wow. Your logic here is inescapable. What is it you're denouncing exactly?
kingdonk
Feb 28, 06:57 PM
Server Monitor, system image and workgroup manager.
more...
Ralion
Mar 24, 04:08 PM
Just got back to the shop with my 16GB ipad ;) too good of a deal to pass up. FYI if you want one call a verizon store NOW. I doubt most stores will last the day
firestarter
May 3, 04:22 PM
Not all lives are "equal". One life of an important financial worker who perished at WTC might be worth more than 1000 soldiers. That's the order of society. A soldier's life is meant to be sacrificed to protect the worker. Some "warriors" are born to be this way, like army ants. The worker is more important because he makes guns to put into the hands of new soldiers. And of course, as you may have noticed, many of the front line (infantry) consists of would be rejects of society that have been conditioned and given a chance to serve a greater purpose than to become delinquents or menial workers that they would have been. "Unimportant Lives" in the big picture despite what their own families think of them. That's the unwritten rule.
I disagree with the difference you're placing between financial workers and soldiers. For all the financial workers lost in the twin towers, others were keen to get in to the industry and take their places. Take Cantor Fitzgerald - almost wiped out by the attack (638 employees killed), it didn't take them long to rebound (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1891774,00.html).
I was on the phone to colleagues in 7 world trade on the day of the attack, and talked with them later about their experience (quite a few took the opportunity to 'reappraise their lives' and stepped away from the industry). They were replaced by others just as good, and our computer systems which were wiped out when the building fell were back on line in hours/days.
People are very resilient and soon bounce back from things like terrorist attacks. Useless waste, pork barrel 'homeland security' projects, 'traffic light' security levels and ongoing war create a steady wearying depression on a country - and I think the negative effect of that has been out of all proportion of the attack.
I disagree with the difference you're placing between financial workers and soldiers. For all the financial workers lost in the twin towers, others were keen to get in to the industry and take their places. Take Cantor Fitzgerald - almost wiped out by the attack (638 employees killed), it didn't take them long to rebound (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1891774,00.html).
I was on the phone to colleagues in 7 world trade on the day of the attack, and talked with them later about their experience (quite a few took the opportunity to 'reappraise their lives' and stepped away from the industry). They were replaced by others just as good, and our computer systems which were wiped out when the building fell were back on line in hours/days.
People are very resilient and soon bounce back from things like terrorist attacks. Useless waste, pork barrel 'homeland security' projects, 'traffic light' security levels and ongoing war create a steady wearying depression on a country - and I think the negative effect of that has been out of all proportion of the attack.
more...
crazzyeddie
Nov 1, 11:18 PM
For the specific Mac models (like the oogles of PowerMac revisions), would it be wise to just link directly to AppleSpec instead of making our own? We already have [[PowerMac]] with links to [[PowerMac_G4]] which then links to [[PowerMac_specificModel]]. Maybe the links on the PowerMac_G4 page should be to the AppleSpec PDFs for those models?
CFreymarc
Nov 20, 11:39 AM
Knowing Apple there will be a way to turn it off in the OS if you don't want to use it. Also for the totally paranoid, a mod to remove the hardware from your iPhone will hit the web the week it is on the street.
Also, I bet the hardware will be laid out where removing a pair or surface mount resistors will make it that simple to disable separating the antenna from the semiconductor.
Why RFID?
Vending Machines
Gas Pumps
Door locks and passage locks
Home security system thing - let's you know who came to your door etc.
Subway Train Token
Movie Tickets
Digital "tickets" for anything.
Museum audio program guide thingies.
Micro Payment systems
Demographic plotting of people passing a turnstile
I hope people try to see beyond the "evil Gubment" spy stuff.
Also, I bet the hardware will be laid out where removing a pair or surface mount resistors will make it that simple to disable separating the antenna from the semiconductor.
Why RFID?
Vending Machines
Gas Pumps
Door locks and passage locks
Home security system thing - let's you know who came to your door etc.
Subway Train Token
Movie Tickets
Digital "tickets" for anything.
Museum audio program guide thingies.
Micro Payment systems
Demographic plotting of people passing a turnstile
I hope people try to see beyond the "evil Gubment" spy stuff.
more...
mags631
Jun 19, 09:03 AM
Pour all their R&D into technologies that don't even exist yet, while continuing to throw up excuses for why they can't include technologies that do. Like Blu-Ray.
I recommend you listen to this interview (http://d8.allthingsd.com/20100607/steve-jobs-at-d8-the-full-uncut-interview/).
While this quote (http://www.ithinkdiff.com/steve-jobs-at-d8-videos-and-interview-transcript-9712/) doesn't specifically mention bluray, it seems like Apple is choosing not to "ride" Bluray into the future:
Apple has a history of doing that, Jobs says, noting that Apple was the first company to dump the floppy and later, to adopt USB. “Sometimes when we get rid of things, people call us crazy….But sometimes you just have to pick the things that are going to be the right horse to ride forward….And Flash has had it’s day…but HTML5 is starting emerge….The video looks better and it works better and you don’t need a plug-in to run it. And while 75 percent of the video on the Web may be available in Flash, a lot of it is available in HTML5 as well.”
I recommend you listen to this interview (http://d8.allthingsd.com/20100607/steve-jobs-at-d8-the-full-uncut-interview/).
While this quote (http://www.ithinkdiff.com/steve-jobs-at-d8-videos-and-interview-transcript-9712/) doesn't specifically mention bluray, it seems like Apple is choosing not to "ride" Bluray into the future:
Apple has a history of doing that, Jobs says, noting that Apple was the first company to dump the floppy and later, to adopt USB. “Sometimes when we get rid of things, people call us crazy….But sometimes you just have to pick the things that are going to be the right horse to ride forward….And Flash has had it’s day…but HTML5 is starting emerge….The video looks better and it works better and you don’t need a plug-in to run it. And while 75 percent of the video on the Web may be available in Flash, a lot of it is available in HTML5 as well.”
MacCoaster
Sep 22, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by avkills
Ok, so Intel has the Itanium, well they have the Itanium2 I guess if you want to get super current, so what! The Itanium is based on a brand new design that looks good on paper, but Intel will be the first to admit it has not performed as good as they hoped.
I simply meant the Itanium family, including both the original Itanium and the current Intamium 2.
Sun, IBM and SGI have had 64bit processors way before Intel. So if you say the Itanium is ok for the high-end consumer, then It's safe to say that a Sun Ultra10 or a SGI Octane would also be a high-end consumer machine.
Sure, okay. Compare the prices. The Itanium solution is much cheaper.
What makes you so sure that a 16 processor G4 machine would not perform, because of the bus speed. What about super high-end servers like the CM5 or the Cray T3D. I seriously doubt those machines have 500Mhz bus speeds, or DDR memory. I know for a fact that the CM5 had dedicated memory for each processor node, and each node had 2 vector units. If you want, I can find out specifics from my brother, who has actually programmed code for it, when he worked at Las Alamos. Whether a 16 processor G4 machine is relevant or not, it could be built and if built right, would be very fast.
Very irrevelant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the G4 wasn't designed to be run in anything more than a dual configuration.
So the .NET family is limited to 32 processors huh....Weak, very weak. You can say what you want, UNIX still scales better than Windows, no matter what the flavor.
Windows isn't designed nor targeted at customers with more than 32 processors. If anyone wanted a 2048-way server, they'd either custom build it and load UNIX on it or have some large corporation develop the computer. It's a lot cheaper clustering 32 high-availablity servers than buying that one 2048-way server. Duh, Windows isn't scalable. It was NEVER designed primarily to be used on 2048-way supercomputers. That's way out of Microsoft's scope and market.
In my opinion, Microsoft is beginning to die a slow painful death. Everyone is tired of their ************ and half-assed attempts of secure computing. Everyone always complains that Macs are not open enough, well I think the opposite is true. Apple embraces open standards and even invents and shares them when none exist, while Microsoft shuns and sometimes even steals others work, in a attempt to push their own proprietary formats and stifle progress.
Funny that Microsoft pushed the ever-so-slow W3C to standardize further dynamic HTML/etc. technologies to become standard. Of course, W3C can't keep current to allow people to innovate in the web presentation standards. Microsoft is even pushing XML very hard with .NET Web Services. And yes, Macs are closed. Not in software, but in hardware. Maybe you were confused by the definition of Macs being closed. The older Macintosh hardware is so proprietary it's not funny. Recent Macs adopt technology that had been in PCs before, except FireWire of course, because Apple invented that. But the hardware is still proprietary. I don't see that we are able to take off-the-shelf high quality components and build our own PowerPC computers then slap Mac OS X on it. Also, Microsoft indeed is "against" open source, and yet they maintain a "shared source" implementation of .NET for FreeBSD. In fact, it's a very well done implementation -- not that most-feeble-possible-implementation that we thought could possible be.
I find it funny that Intel invented USB, but it was Apple that took the leap of faith and pushed it into the mainstream. Apple, in my opinion is the only company thinking "outside the box" and in the end, they will win because of it.
-mark
Maybe it was Apple and Microsoft (Windows 98) who popularized USB, but you've got to realize this. PCs have had USB a few years before Apple. It wasn't until iMac/Windows 98 (note, same year: 1998) that USB got popular.
Ok, so Intel has the Itanium, well they have the Itanium2 I guess if you want to get super current, so what! The Itanium is based on a brand new design that looks good on paper, but Intel will be the first to admit it has not performed as good as they hoped.
I simply meant the Itanium family, including both the original Itanium and the current Intamium 2.
Sun, IBM and SGI have had 64bit processors way before Intel. So if you say the Itanium is ok for the high-end consumer, then It's safe to say that a Sun Ultra10 or a SGI Octane would also be a high-end consumer machine.
Sure, okay. Compare the prices. The Itanium solution is much cheaper.
What makes you so sure that a 16 processor G4 machine would not perform, because of the bus speed. What about super high-end servers like the CM5 or the Cray T3D. I seriously doubt those machines have 500Mhz bus speeds, or DDR memory. I know for a fact that the CM5 had dedicated memory for each processor node, and each node had 2 vector units. If you want, I can find out specifics from my brother, who has actually programmed code for it, when he worked at Las Alamos. Whether a 16 processor G4 machine is relevant or not, it could be built and if built right, would be very fast.
Very irrevelant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the G4 wasn't designed to be run in anything more than a dual configuration.
So the .NET family is limited to 32 processors huh....Weak, very weak. You can say what you want, UNIX still scales better than Windows, no matter what the flavor.
Windows isn't designed nor targeted at customers with more than 32 processors. If anyone wanted a 2048-way server, they'd either custom build it and load UNIX on it or have some large corporation develop the computer. It's a lot cheaper clustering 32 high-availablity servers than buying that one 2048-way server. Duh, Windows isn't scalable. It was NEVER designed primarily to be used on 2048-way supercomputers. That's way out of Microsoft's scope and market.
In my opinion, Microsoft is beginning to die a slow painful death. Everyone is tired of their ************ and half-assed attempts of secure computing. Everyone always complains that Macs are not open enough, well I think the opposite is true. Apple embraces open standards and even invents and shares them when none exist, while Microsoft shuns and sometimes even steals others work, in a attempt to push their own proprietary formats and stifle progress.
Funny that Microsoft pushed the ever-so-slow W3C to standardize further dynamic HTML/etc. technologies to become standard. Of course, W3C can't keep current to allow people to innovate in the web presentation standards. Microsoft is even pushing XML very hard with .NET Web Services. And yes, Macs are closed. Not in software, but in hardware. Maybe you were confused by the definition of Macs being closed. The older Macintosh hardware is so proprietary it's not funny. Recent Macs adopt technology that had been in PCs before, except FireWire of course, because Apple invented that. But the hardware is still proprietary. I don't see that we are able to take off-the-shelf high quality components and build our own PowerPC computers then slap Mac OS X on it. Also, Microsoft indeed is "against" open source, and yet they maintain a "shared source" implementation of .NET for FreeBSD. In fact, it's a very well done implementation -- not that most-feeble-possible-implementation that we thought could possible be.
I find it funny that Intel invented USB, but it was Apple that took the leap of faith and pushed it into the mainstream. Apple, in my opinion is the only company thinking "outside the box" and in the end, they will win because of it.
-mark
Maybe it was Apple and Microsoft (Windows 98) who popularized USB, but you've got to realize this. PCs have had USB a few years before Apple. It wasn't until iMac/Windows 98 (note, same year: 1998) that USB got popular.
more...
whooleytoo
Sep 26, 06:03 AM
But here you're implying that Apple has any rights at all to the word podcast, when it was clearly invented by someone else (Adam Curry, perhaps, though there is some debate; it was certainly not Apple Computer). How in the heck can they make a claim? It's not like they are called iPodcasts. That I could see being an infringement. Just how far are they intending to go with the word 'pod'?
I agree wholeheartedly - how can they trademark a term someone else created?
For a company that was so rebellious and different in its infancy, Apple sure is getting cranky in its middle age.
I agree wholeheartedly - how can they trademark a term someone else created?
For a company that was so rebellious and different in its infancy, Apple sure is getting cranky in its middle age.
iSee
Apr 5, 06:10 PM
As a true believer and a life-long Consumer Reports subscriber (been paying myself since I got my first real job > 20 years ago and before that I read my mother's magazines), I say this:
CR is "at best mediocre" at evaluating tech. They are like a bunch of really sharp grandpas and grandmas: on traditional things -- things they understand well -- they are superb -- unbeatable, really. Ignore their advice on cars or vacuums at your own risk. You might as well burn money. But they just don't get new technology and don't know how to evaluate it.
I happen to agree with them this time around, but believe me, it is purely coincidental. Just ignore CU when it comes to tech.
CR is "at best mediocre" at evaluating tech. They are like a bunch of really sharp grandpas and grandmas: on traditional things -- things they understand well -- they are superb -- unbeatable, really. Ignore their advice on cars or vacuums at your own risk. You might as well burn money. But they just don't get new technology and don't know how to evaluate it.
I happen to agree with them this time around, but believe me, it is purely coincidental. Just ignore CU when it comes to tech.
lolnick
Mar 11, 12:09 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Dbl post
Dbl post
Mac Fly (film)
Oct 26, 11:51 PM
If you want just the email account then yes, .Mac is not worth it. That's the point. .Mac is more than email, and if you want an email address, get Gmail and hook it up into Mail.app....
Are you saying you're happy it costs $99? You don't want to pay less, no? :rolleyes: The more complaining and bad feedback we give Apple that this service is simply too expensive the better, and the better chance we have they will begin to pay attention to loads (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=.Mac%20too%20expensive&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) of posts/blogs/and stories on this. I feel sick when I have to tell someone how much it costs. I mean they say .Mac syncing is included! You have to pay to sync computers that you payed money for, and worse still you have to give it to the company you bought the computers from?? Give me a break! GMail is free too. iWeb provides little bandwidth, and the whole this is wrapped-up with a tiny storage package. And I don't think the solution is for Apple to give us more storage. I would prefer a cheaper price to more storage any-day. If you want moe storage then you pay $99, otherwise this should cost no more than $49 per year. At the VERY MOST!!
Are you saying you're happy it costs $99? You don't want to pay less, no? :rolleyes: The more complaining and bad feedback we give Apple that this service is simply too expensive the better, and the better chance we have they will begin to pay attention to loads (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=.Mac%20too%20expensive&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) of posts/blogs/and stories on this. I feel sick when I have to tell someone how much it costs. I mean they say .Mac syncing is included! You have to pay to sync computers that you payed money for, and worse still you have to give it to the company you bought the computers from?? Give me a break! GMail is free too. iWeb provides little bandwidth, and the whole this is wrapped-up with a tiny storage package. And I don't think the solution is for Apple to give us more storage. I would prefer a cheaper price to more storage any-day. If you want moe storage then you pay $99, otherwise this should cost no more than $49 per year. At the VERY MOST!!
AvSRoCkCO1067
Aug 14, 01:41 PM
Not because of these commercials.
Honestly, neither of us is a marketing guru. However, we both do know a few things:
1) Apple's market share has been increasing recently (simultaneously with its Intel transition and introduction of new ads)
2) Apple recently claimed that it believes market share has been increasing partially because of these ads at its recent quarterly report.
3) Apple has committed millions of dollars to both developing these ads and paying for them to be seen on both popular television programming and internet websites.
I'm sure Apple and its marketing team knows better than we do - they wouldn't keep showing these ads if they believed they had a negative effect on the marketplace.
Then by what? Thes ads certainly arent hurting Apple.
Exactly - enlighten us. How do you know why its marketshare has increased as of late? Neither me nor freeny claim that its SOLELY because of the ads - but how can you prove that the ads haven't convinced 1 single switcher...?
Honestly, neither of us is a marketing guru. However, we both do know a few things:
1) Apple's market share has been increasing recently (simultaneously with its Intel transition and introduction of new ads)
2) Apple recently claimed that it believes market share has been increasing partially because of these ads at its recent quarterly report.
3) Apple has committed millions of dollars to both developing these ads and paying for them to be seen on both popular television programming and internet websites.
I'm sure Apple and its marketing team knows better than we do - they wouldn't keep showing these ads if they believed they had a negative effect on the marketplace.
Then by what? Thes ads certainly arent hurting Apple.
Exactly - enlighten us. How do you know why its marketshare has increased as of late? Neither me nor freeny claim that its SOLELY because of the ads - but how can you prove that the ads haven't convinced 1 single switcher...?
Squadleader
Apr 8, 07:17 PM
Yes. And ...?
Originally Posted by Xeperu View Post
"Humans should have the full right to decide over their own bodies, that includes planned parenthood and abortions."
Originally Posted by Xeperu View Post
"Humans should have the full right to decide over their own bodies, that includes planned parenthood and abortions."
BrettJDeriso
Mar 23, 06:46 PM
So then they'd finally start catching up with Samsung? I can already stream content straight from my phone to my Samsung TV with AllShare. Not to mention, many of the top manufacturers have already adopted DLNA.
I still don't see the open FaceTime standard Jobs promised when he demoed it at the iPhone 4 media event.
I'm sure there will be plenty in the media who will want to sing Apple's praises over this sort of thing, but Cupertino is going to have to get their devices up to 1080p with open source streaming before I give a crap.
And STILL no wireless syncing of iTunes content to iOS devices. Lame.
I still don't see the open FaceTime standard Jobs promised when he demoed it at the iPhone 4 media event.
I'm sure there will be plenty in the media who will want to sing Apple's praises over this sort of thing, but Cupertino is going to have to get their devices up to 1080p with open source streaming before I give a crap.
And STILL no wireless syncing of iTunes content to iOS devices. Lame.
topperdog
Mar 24, 11:23 AM
Airtunes has been awful since all the latest updates Apple has made. Fix the issues Apple created before adding more to the mix. Dropouts are Airtunes only quality now. Good idea, but it doesn't work very well at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment