anjinha
Mar 22, 11:29 PM
I don't believe any was born gay, that's my opinion. I believe you make the choice in your life, just like you make the choice on what career you want and college you desire to go to. I have friends that were once married (guy/girl) and then divorced because they liked their sex better. So now they are openly gay and happy. I have back and forth e-mails with them stating they consider it a choice. One of my friends is a writer for Lesbians and spoke in front of congress on this issue 2 years ago. I was with her and she even stated that it was a choice to become a lesbian and it's now America's choice to accept it for all for choose this path.
They didn't choose to be gay. They either were bisexual and simply chose to date people from the same sex or they were previously in the closet an eventually came out.
Sexuality is about who you're attracted to, not necessarily who you date/have sex with. You can choose who to date/have sex with but not who you're attracted to. Some men live "straight lifestyles" while being attracted to other men. That means they're in the closet, not that they chose to be straight.
There are a lot of people who are born gay. There are also people who were born as bisexuals and then made a choice to either be strait or gay, which probably was the case for your friend.
No, they're still bisexual, they simply choose to date people of the same sex.
They didn't choose to be gay. They either were bisexual and simply chose to date people from the same sex or they were previously in the closet an eventually came out.
Sexuality is about who you're attracted to, not necessarily who you date/have sex with. You can choose who to date/have sex with but not who you're attracted to. Some men live "straight lifestyles" while being attracted to other men. That means they're in the closet, not that they chose to be straight.
There are a lot of people who are born gay. There are also people who were born as bisexuals and then made a choice to either be strait or gay, which probably was the case for your friend.
No, they're still bisexual, they simply choose to date people of the same sex.
freebooter
Sep 1, 12:32 PM
if not, how am I supposed to convice my wife this time?:D
Tell her about the extra three inches to "love".
Tell her about the extra three inches to "love".
cderalow
Jan 11, 08:47 PM
That's a nice Si. Don't believe I've ever seen one in that color. My friend had an '08 Si sedan for about 7 months or so, but had to get a 4WD for work. His was black. It was a BEAST! He put a Skunk2 catback on it and a Weapon R intake and I swear, that thing would scream. It sounded like a Ferrari. :eek: I miss it.
Galaxy Gray Metallic
He's also rocking rims from an acura tsx
my current family ride:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4070/5154868167_07b8e86d15.jpg
2007 Honda CR-V AWD EX-L
though, likely to be trading to a 2011 Honda Odyssey EX-L in a bit to support the expanding family
Galaxy Gray Metallic
He's also rocking rims from an acura tsx
my current family ride:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4070/5154868167_07b8e86d15.jpg
2007 Honda CR-V AWD EX-L
though, likely to be trading to a 2011 Honda Odyssey EX-L in a bit to support the expanding family
topgunn
Nov 27, 01:34 PM
Built-in iSights, now there's an idea! :D
Asus has this (http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?l1=10&l2=88&l3=367&model=1136&modelmenu=1) display which includes speakers and a webcam. It would be nice if Apple introduced a similar concept with a display only. It would be prefect for the Mac mini.
Asus has this (http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?l1=10&l2=88&l3=367&model=1136&modelmenu=1) display which includes speakers and a webcam. It would be nice if Apple introduced a similar concept with a display only. It would be prefect for the Mac mini.
tychay
Nov 28, 08:09 PM
I have no idea where you got that one from. The original Xbox never made a profit. Microsoft is deliberately selling the Xbox 360 at a loss to capture marketshare. However, the PS3 and Ninetindo Wii are selling like hotcakes, are latest big things, and have the buzz. The best laid plans ...
I think the first statement is correct or close to it. They may have had a single profitable quarter when Halo 2 was released. I'm not sure because they bury games in a Microsoft Entertainment and Devices Division. Which includes their smartphone stuff (now that it has stopped bleeding money) and their profitable and acclaimed mice, keyboards, and other stuff (all manufactured by other companies, sort of like Dell, but with a nicer design).
The second part I believe is now wrong. I think the XBox 360 is no longer a loss lead, though that might change as there is some speculation that they will be dropping the price to undercut Sony soon. I believe the fact that it is no longer a loss lead is causing a confounding with the "360 is profitable" commentaries here.
Another commenter mentioned how smart it was was the XBox had a hard drive on it. I’d say if it is so smart why did Microsoft remove it in the base model 360? I’ll point out that this happened because the price of hard drives do not get any cheaper! In fact the price of commodity hardware design doesn’t get any cheaper! Huh? Hard drives get bigger, not cheaper. Processors and chips get more powerful, not cheaper.
What went on is that successive iterations of the Playstation and Playstation 2 would allow Sony to combine chips to reduce the price (and make smaller PSOne and slim-cased Playstation 2). This outlet wasn't available to Microsoft because of their design which is why the XBox was a losing money for it's entire run and Sony played games by dropping their price before it ever turned a profit.
Those two things are "of a piece". While commodity hardware was an interesting idea, it was a failure. Which is why the XBox 360 is not built from commodity PC hardware. The hard drives are a necessary evil of the "Live" strategy so they're left in as an option and bundled with the Playstation 3. That's why these 6G consoles are expensive and not dropping in price fast.
Right now all this is moot since the thing to watch is the Sony gamble on a blue laser. Obviously it will get cheaper fast, but the question is how fast and how cheap? The horrible yields on the Cell processor isn't helping things.
Currently, the XBox 360 has sold very consistently at around 1.5 million units a quarter. The XMas quarter last year had supply issues and only sold .9 million units. That's hardly dominating. In fact, I think the Playstation 2 outsold the 360 in each of those quarters even though the device is six years old. Let's put some numbers here. Last year over 100 million Playstation 2’s had been sold, six months ago, they were selling 380k/month. The XBox 360 sold 6 million units since it's introduction over a year ago, six months ago they were selling 300k/month, they had fixed the channel problems that plagued the release.
Consider this: Nintendo sold 600,000 Wiis in the last eight days. Given the scarcity of the Playstation 3 and the popularity and addictiveness of WiiSports and Zelda, they should easily crush that .9 million opening quarter of the 360. And consider this: each unit at a profit with a number of titles putting money directly in Nintendo's pocket.
I'm not claiming that the Wii will beat the 360. I'm just pointing out that according to sales numbers, the 360 is no iPod, is not trending to an iPod, will never be an iPod. The iPod sits on 75% market share. The closest thing to an iPod in the entertainment market is the Playstation 2.
Which is a big distraction from the point. And what is the point? That the XBox is a bad analogy. It is best to consider their Windows CE->Smartphone Microsoft play to see that the Zune is a bad idea. How many years and failed ideas have there been (Windows CE, Windows Mobile, PocketPC, etc. etc.)? How many billions sunk (some years more than the entire capitalization of the PDA market)? How much marketshare? 6% of smartphones, 60% of the dead-end PDA market, and most of the dead ATM teller market (because IBM did a phased pull out, not because Microsoft "won"). And even those markets are being eaten by Linux faster than Windows.
The only thing we can learn from the XBox and Microsoft is that Microsoft pees on their partners (NVidia) at the earliest opportunity. But we already knew that as soon as the Zune didn't support Plays For Sure.
I think the first statement is correct or close to it. They may have had a single profitable quarter when Halo 2 was released. I'm not sure because they bury games in a Microsoft Entertainment and Devices Division. Which includes their smartphone stuff (now that it has stopped bleeding money) and their profitable and acclaimed mice, keyboards, and other stuff (all manufactured by other companies, sort of like Dell, but with a nicer design).
The second part I believe is now wrong. I think the XBox 360 is no longer a loss lead, though that might change as there is some speculation that they will be dropping the price to undercut Sony soon. I believe the fact that it is no longer a loss lead is causing a confounding with the "360 is profitable" commentaries here.
Another commenter mentioned how smart it was was the XBox had a hard drive on it. I’d say if it is so smart why did Microsoft remove it in the base model 360? I’ll point out that this happened because the price of hard drives do not get any cheaper! In fact the price of commodity hardware design doesn’t get any cheaper! Huh? Hard drives get bigger, not cheaper. Processors and chips get more powerful, not cheaper.
What went on is that successive iterations of the Playstation and Playstation 2 would allow Sony to combine chips to reduce the price (and make smaller PSOne and slim-cased Playstation 2). This outlet wasn't available to Microsoft because of their design which is why the XBox was a losing money for it's entire run and Sony played games by dropping their price before it ever turned a profit.
Those two things are "of a piece". While commodity hardware was an interesting idea, it was a failure. Which is why the XBox 360 is not built from commodity PC hardware. The hard drives are a necessary evil of the "Live" strategy so they're left in as an option and bundled with the Playstation 3. That's why these 6G consoles are expensive and not dropping in price fast.
Right now all this is moot since the thing to watch is the Sony gamble on a blue laser. Obviously it will get cheaper fast, but the question is how fast and how cheap? The horrible yields on the Cell processor isn't helping things.
Currently, the XBox 360 has sold very consistently at around 1.5 million units a quarter. The XMas quarter last year had supply issues and only sold .9 million units. That's hardly dominating. In fact, I think the Playstation 2 outsold the 360 in each of those quarters even though the device is six years old. Let's put some numbers here. Last year over 100 million Playstation 2’s had been sold, six months ago, they were selling 380k/month. The XBox 360 sold 6 million units since it's introduction over a year ago, six months ago they were selling 300k/month, they had fixed the channel problems that plagued the release.
Consider this: Nintendo sold 600,000 Wiis in the last eight days. Given the scarcity of the Playstation 3 and the popularity and addictiveness of WiiSports and Zelda, they should easily crush that .9 million opening quarter of the 360. And consider this: each unit at a profit with a number of titles putting money directly in Nintendo's pocket.
I'm not claiming that the Wii will beat the 360. I'm just pointing out that according to sales numbers, the 360 is no iPod, is not trending to an iPod, will never be an iPod. The iPod sits on 75% market share. The closest thing to an iPod in the entertainment market is the Playstation 2.
Which is a big distraction from the point. And what is the point? That the XBox is a bad analogy. It is best to consider their Windows CE->Smartphone Microsoft play to see that the Zune is a bad idea. How many years and failed ideas have there been (Windows CE, Windows Mobile, PocketPC, etc. etc.)? How many billions sunk (some years more than the entire capitalization of the PDA market)? How much marketshare? 6% of smartphones, 60% of the dead-end PDA market, and most of the dead ATM teller market (because IBM did a phased pull out, not because Microsoft "won"). And even those markets are being eaten by Linux faster than Windows.
The only thing we can learn from the XBox and Microsoft is that Microsoft pees on their partners (NVidia) at the earliest opportunity. But we already knew that as soon as the Zune didn't support Plays For Sure.
Mr Bigs
Sep 15, 09:17 AM
bmustaf
I agree with you on the points that Apple does need a reminder of where it stands in the consumer/producer relationship every now and then, just as any other company does. Consumer Reports generally does a good job with facilitating this. I'd much rather a major publication start taking Apple to task about not allowing sideloading/locking down the device though to be honest.
My issue, from a personal viewpoint as an iPhone and Android user, is the way the iPhone4 antenna issue was approached and in my opinion blown out of proportion in terms of the net effect.
Yes the phone suffers a -20dB attenuation when you hold the device and bridge that antenna. My HTC Desire gave me a -14dB attenuation when I held it in one hand and my Galaxy S gives me -18dB when holding it in one hand. The only difference is that the attenuation on the iPhone4 is possible by simply bridging that antenna with your pinky finger rather than needing to hold the device.
The point there is that how often does someone do that where they lay a device on a table and touch that particular spot with a pinky finger? Or why would someone do that? The issue is that the signal attenuates when the device is held. But every phone suffers that to some degree, with even phones that have internal antennas giving comparable attenuation when held in your hand.
They focused quite a bit on "if I touch the device just like this when it's laying down it gives me the attenuation" despite the fact no one does that. They should have looked at it from a net user experience, where "does a -20dB attenuation make a phone not recommendable compared to a phone with only a -15dB attenuation" being the more deciding factor.
To me personally, I can't see how someone can recommend a phone that gives you -15 to -18dB attenuation when held and then not recommend a phone that gives you -20dB simply because it can also be reproduced by touching a marked spot with your pinky if the device is laying on a table. That's not to say that Apple should be proud that their phone also attenuates (and usually more so by varying degrees), but where's the cutoff?
Is -19dB the maximum allowable attenuation before you say something isn't recommendable? I think that's a fair question to ask.How many of those devices actually loose service because of a grip ?
I agree with you on the points that Apple does need a reminder of where it stands in the consumer/producer relationship every now and then, just as any other company does. Consumer Reports generally does a good job with facilitating this. I'd much rather a major publication start taking Apple to task about not allowing sideloading/locking down the device though to be honest.
My issue, from a personal viewpoint as an iPhone and Android user, is the way the iPhone4 antenna issue was approached and in my opinion blown out of proportion in terms of the net effect.
Yes the phone suffers a -20dB attenuation when you hold the device and bridge that antenna. My HTC Desire gave me a -14dB attenuation when I held it in one hand and my Galaxy S gives me -18dB when holding it in one hand. The only difference is that the attenuation on the iPhone4 is possible by simply bridging that antenna with your pinky finger rather than needing to hold the device.
The point there is that how often does someone do that where they lay a device on a table and touch that particular spot with a pinky finger? Or why would someone do that? The issue is that the signal attenuates when the device is held. But every phone suffers that to some degree, with even phones that have internal antennas giving comparable attenuation when held in your hand.
They focused quite a bit on "if I touch the device just like this when it's laying down it gives me the attenuation" despite the fact no one does that. They should have looked at it from a net user experience, where "does a -20dB attenuation make a phone not recommendable compared to a phone with only a -15dB attenuation" being the more deciding factor.
To me personally, I can't see how someone can recommend a phone that gives you -15 to -18dB attenuation when held and then not recommend a phone that gives you -20dB simply because it can also be reproduced by touching a marked spot with your pinky if the device is laying on a table. That's not to say that Apple should be proud that their phone also attenuates (and usually more so by varying degrees), but where's the cutoff?
Is -19dB the maximum allowable attenuation before you say something isn't recommendable? I think that's a fair question to ask.How many of those devices actually loose service because of a grip ?
Akme
Mar 31, 12:23 PM
Anyone else having their menu bar go black regularly? Have to switch into Launchpad (or similar) to get it back to normal. It's often accompanied by the fan spinning up, so I'm assuming it's some sort of issue related to graphics switching/drivers.
dguisinger
Aug 7, 07:53 AM
Huh....so VM Ware finally got their act together; and its only pre-register for a future upcoming beta.
....you know, I'd have to say they dropped the ball on this one.
parallels not only did the public beta first, they released a final product a full month before VMWare announced beta.....and is in the Apple Store, office depot, staples.... heck, its even in Apple's TV commercials.....
VMWare might use to have had a good edge, but I think they lose out on the Mac oppurtunity.....
....you know, I'd have to say they dropped the ball on this one.
parallels not only did the public beta first, they released a final product a full month before VMWare announced beta.....and is in the Apple Store, office depot, staples.... heck, its even in Apple's TV commercials.....
VMWare might use to have had a good edge, but I think they lose out on the Mac oppurtunity.....
MikhailT
Apr 10, 10:35 AM
I don't understand why everyone seems to dislike the "new" iCal so much. Clearly, it was adopted by iPad iOS at first and now by Mac OS X Lion. Nothing new here. Nothing unexpected.
I don't remember people disliking/complaining about the iCal look on iPad at all. I tell ya, people complain just for the sake of complaining. What a crowd. :rolleyes:It doesn't look exactly the same on the iPad and an interface tuned to iOS shouldn't be used in the same away on the desktop. You can be creative with the interface controls and so on but this is too far. The colors are too distracting and much *brighter* than the one used on the iPad.
The problem that I have is that Apple seems to breaking away from their Human Interface Guidelines that every developers on the Macs platform follows. The sooner they do this, the more likely the third party apps are going to not follow it either. If every apps looks completely different, then it's going to be harder to get used to how things work on the Mac platform. Consistency is the number 1 thing that Mac OS X does successfully and if we break away from it, it's going to look ugly overnight.
I don't think people are complaining for the sake of complaining, in this case, they have a valid reason to. Not only is it look completely different, it can be distracting when you're used to all metal theme on OS X and you can't choose to disable this interface.
IMO, it's distracting, ugly and I want an option to turn this off. Otherwise, I'd just wait for a third-party app with a better interface and/or hacks to enable the *Aqua* theme.
I don't remember people disliking/complaining about the iCal look on iPad at all. I tell ya, people complain just for the sake of complaining. What a crowd. :rolleyes:It doesn't look exactly the same on the iPad and an interface tuned to iOS shouldn't be used in the same away on the desktop. You can be creative with the interface controls and so on but this is too far. The colors are too distracting and much *brighter* than the one used on the iPad.
The problem that I have is that Apple seems to breaking away from their Human Interface Guidelines that every developers on the Macs platform follows. The sooner they do this, the more likely the third party apps are going to not follow it either. If every apps looks completely different, then it's going to be harder to get used to how things work on the Mac platform. Consistency is the number 1 thing that Mac OS X does successfully and if we break away from it, it's going to look ugly overnight.
I don't think people are complaining for the sake of complaining, in this case, they have a valid reason to. Not only is it look completely different, it can be distracting when you're used to all metal theme on OS X and you can't choose to disable this interface.
IMO, it's distracting, ugly and I want an option to turn this off. Otherwise, I'd just wait for a third-party app with a better interface and/or hacks to enable the *Aqua* theme.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 23, 11:15 AM
-- The cache is good
Let's be clear: the cell/hotspot lookup caching was undoubtedly an innocently added coding feature.
Alex#39;s Blue Dress:
Selena Gomez at the People#39;s
Can#39;t go wrong with Chloe. Rachel “Perfect” Bilson. We can#39;t say enough about Rachel#39;s utter perfection. Perfect hair, perfect print dress,
Last night Selena Gomez
Selena Gomez bikini dress
Selena Gomez arrived at the
Hot or Not?
Let's be clear: the cell/hotspot lookup caching was undoubtedly an innocently added coding feature.
macidiot
Jul 20, 02:00 PM
Just to give some more figures - Gartner says worldwide PC sales are 55 million compared to 49.5 million this time last year, and 16.6 million in the US compared to 15.6 million last year.
But I wonder where they got 766,000 from. The sales figures separate out retail from regional sales, but considering that most Apple stores are in the US, the vast majority of the 216,000 retail sales would be in the US, so US sales could be anything between 642,000-858,000. That's 3.9%-5.2% US market share. Looks like they picked a percentage right in the middle, but I would say it's nearer to 5%. Of course, worldwide it's still only 2.4%.
To put this in perspective, Dell sold 9.73 million PC worldwide and 5.3 million in the US, ie. 7x Apple's shipments.
According to Gartner, Apple US marketshare last quarter was 4.8%.
But I wonder where they got 766,000 from. The sales figures separate out retail from regional sales, but considering that most Apple stores are in the US, the vast majority of the 216,000 retail sales would be in the US, so US sales could be anything between 642,000-858,000. That's 3.9%-5.2% US market share. Looks like they picked a percentage right in the middle, but I would say it's nearer to 5%. Of course, worldwide it's still only 2.4%.
To put this in perspective, Dell sold 9.73 million PC worldwide and 5.3 million in the US, ie. 7x Apple's shipments.
According to Gartner, Apple US marketshare last quarter was 4.8%.
AppleCode
Nov 26, 07:14 AM
Holly crap i have the same thing! You have ethe Blackberry 3G?
Ya I do :D Also just bought http://iweb.cooking.com/images/products/enlarge/313920e.jpg
Ya I do :D Also just bought http://iweb.cooking.com/images/products/enlarge/313920e.jpg
jettredmont
May 2, 04:56 PM
This concept might seem alien to a lot of MacRumours users, but being a 'switcher', the method of deleting any app on OS X currently seems very ad hoc. I've been a mac user now for about 4 years and yet the idea of having to delete an app by dragging it to the trash seems very... strange. You never know if you've deleted ALL of that program.
Microsoft have managed to get one thing right in Windows. A specific tool (Add/Remove Programs) to delete a program. That's something that I genuinely feel is lacking in OS X and this idea of clicking and holding in LaunchPad makes sense. It's imple enough: most users who own an iPhone will have no trouble in adopting this method. And what's more, it makes it instantly accessible to anyone who uses a mac. In addition, it goes a step further than Microsoft. It avoids making more novice users from having to delve in to a complex window of settings. A step in the right direction? I think so!
So personally, I think this is a very simple yet very effective change to make to OS X and should be a welcome sign of the things to come in Lion!
When I switched (back in 2002), the hardest thing in this respect was getting it through my head that that one icon sitting in the /Applications folder really is the whole app (*for well-behaved drag-install apps). Yes, you have "tools" like AppCleaner which delete all the prefs and user files for an app as well, obliterating any trace that the app was ver on your system, but those are just prefs. If the app itself is removed, the prefs are just text (or sometimes binary compressed) files sitting on the hard drive. They don't matter.
This is in absolute contrast to Windows where any app worth its salt comes with an installer, which spreads unknowable components throughout the hard drive and changes various settings everywhere in the system. Of course you need another automated tool to (sometimes) undo all those changes.
Since the trend in Mac software has been a lot of large installers (the majority are well-behaved drag-install apps, but I see installers on apps which really shouldn't need an opaque installer at all). OS X doesn't have a good answer for those kinds of apps, and it is indeed messy.
The App Store, however, essentially moves us back to a compartmentalized app workspace which can be removed as automatically as it is laid down.
Microsoft have managed to get one thing right in Windows. A specific tool (Add/Remove Programs) to delete a program. That's something that I genuinely feel is lacking in OS X and this idea of clicking and holding in LaunchPad makes sense. It's imple enough: most users who own an iPhone will have no trouble in adopting this method. And what's more, it makes it instantly accessible to anyone who uses a mac. In addition, it goes a step further than Microsoft. It avoids making more novice users from having to delve in to a complex window of settings. A step in the right direction? I think so!
So personally, I think this is a very simple yet very effective change to make to OS X and should be a welcome sign of the things to come in Lion!
When I switched (back in 2002), the hardest thing in this respect was getting it through my head that that one icon sitting in the /Applications folder really is the whole app (*for well-behaved drag-install apps). Yes, you have "tools" like AppCleaner which delete all the prefs and user files for an app as well, obliterating any trace that the app was ver on your system, but those are just prefs. If the app itself is removed, the prefs are just text (or sometimes binary compressed) files sitting on the hard drive. They don't matter.
This is in absolute contrast to Windows where any app worth its salt comes with an installer, which spreads unknowable components throughout the hard drive and changes various settings everywhere in the system. Of course you need another automated tool to (sometimes) undo all those changes.
Since the trend in Mac software has been a lot of large installers (the majority are well-behaved drag-install apps, but I see installers on apps which really shouldn't need an opaque installer at all). OS X doesn't have a good answer for those kinds of apps, and it is indeed messy.
The App Store, however, essentially moves us back to a compartmentalized app workspace which can be removed as automatically as it is laid down.
WeegieMac
Apr 2, 12:55 PM
THANK YOU!
---
safari got some fixes to it seems, scrolling works smoother and doesn't get stuck on pages with lots of pics or vids and the error with not being able to type anything unless u close safari seems to be fixed as well.
I find Safari 5.1 far better than Safari 5.0.4 on Snow Leopard.
---
safari got some fixes to it seems, scrolling works smoother and doesn't get stuck on pages with lots of pics or vids and the error with not being able to type anything unless u close safari seems to be fixed as well.
I find Safari 5.1 far better than Safari 5.0.4 on Snow Leopard.
Chris Bangle
Jan 12, 11:31 AM
I figured out the secret air message!
What falls out of the air? ... Apple (s)
Who do they fall on? ... Newton!
It's the new Newton :apple:
I'd bet nothing on it!
thats quite clever actually... remember apples first logo.
What falls out of the air? ... Apple (s)
Who do they fall on? ... Newton!
It's the new Newton :apple:
I'd bet nothing on it!
thats quite clever actually... remember apples first logo.
bigpics
Mar 24, 12:57 PM
Dude, I'm sorry to inform you that what you're saying is an outright lie, and there are guys from the Lossless Compression Clan, called "Apple Lossless codec", "FLAC", and "APE", standing with heavy cluebats in their hands, ready to perform a painful reality sync on anyone thinking compression ALWAYS degrades quality.
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
Demoman
Jul 20, 01:09 AM
When the "real" machines are out, Vista will be out as well. Unless Leopard has revolutionary improvements, the difference between Windows and OSX+iLife would be much less than that it is today. I would still appreciate the UNIX under the hood, but I doubt most consumers care. If Mac sales or market share starts to come down a bit due to fewer switchers, the share price could easily crash.
You are probably nursing those MS shares you bought at $90, hoping for a better day. It is not coming anytime soon sorry to say. Buying is about momentum. Apple has it and MS does not. Vista already has a great deal of bad press and it has not even hit the street. eWeek and other journals are already writing about Vista security vulnerabilities. That is not a good sign. Vista features and functionality has been scaled back numerous times. That too is not a good sign.
Who would have imagined that the common view. amongst the informed computer community, was MS was trying desperately to draw close to even-up with Apple? About the time MS established Windows 2000, they were at the top of the computer world in just about every SW market there was.
They finally had a very stable desktop, server platform, mail server, yellow pages, browser, office suite, SQL engine, and so on. But once they reached this pinnacle, two things happened (or at least two I want to talk about). One, they became way too greedy with their predatory licensing. It just went through the roof. If you have never purchased SW at the enterprise level, you do not understand how expensive this has become. SW can cost (at least) as much HW at the enterprise level.
The second thing that happened at MS is best described in a quote "When Alexander looked at his empire, he wept for there was nothing more to conquer." Instead of continuing on the path of R&D, they tried to find "new worlds to conquer", secure in the knowledge they had indeed subdued all competitors who could challenge them. Sun had tried to mount a charge in the early-mid 90's. Fortunately for MS, Sun's CEO lacked the wherewithal to do more than file lawsuits. Linux suffers from the exact problems that have plagued the Unix community; they cannot unify because they have no leadership.
Apple has been the sleeping giant. They have made their mistakes, taken their lumps and paid their dues. After 20 years, I finally bought a Mac. That was mainly because my boss gave me ~ $15K to buy any personal technology I wanted (bonus type of deal). I was learning video production/editing and using the cheap PC stuff. To make a long story short, I can now boast the purchase of:
Selena Gomez hopped out on
Celeb: Selena Gomez.
You are probably nursing those MS shares you bought at $90, hoping for a better day. It is not coming anytime soon sorry to say. Buying is about momentum. Apple has it and MS does not. Vista already has a great deal of bad press and it has not even hit the street. eWeek and other journals are already writing about Vista security vulnerabilities. That is not a good sign. Vista features and functionality has been scaled back numerous times. That too is not a good sign.
Who would have imagined that the common view. amongst the informed computer community, was MS was trying desperately to draw close to even-up with Apple? About the time MS established Windows 2000, they were at the top of the computer world in just about every SW market there was.
They finally had a very stable desktop, server platform, mail server, yellow pages, browser, office suite, SQL engine, and so on. But once they reached this pinnacle, two things happened (or at least two I want to talk about). One, they became way too greedy with their predatory licensing. It just went through the roof. If you have never purchased SW at the enterprise level, you do not understand how expensive this has become. SW can cost (at least) as much HW at the enterprise level.
The second thing that happened at MS is best described in a quote "When Alexander looked at his empire, he wept for there was nothing more to conquer." Instead of continuing on the path of R&D, they tried to find "new worlds to conquer", secure in the knowledge they had indeed subdued all competitors who could challenge them. Sun had tried to mount a charge in the early-mid 90's. Fortunately for MS, Sun's CEO lacked the wherewithal to do more than file lawsuits. Linux suffers from the exact problems that have plagued the Unix community; they cannot unify because they have no leadership.
Apple has been the sleeping giant. They have made their mistakes, taken their lumps and paid their dues. After 20 years, I finally bought a Mac. That was mainly because my boss gave me ~ $15K to buy any personal technology I wanted (bonus type of deal). I was learning video production/editing and using the cheap PC stuff. To make a long story short, I can now boast the purchase of:
iJohnHenry
Mar 19, 03:17 PM
Break out the champers.
CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/19/libya.civil.war/index.html).
CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/19/libya.civil.war/index.html).
henrikrox
Mar 25, 05:49 PM
Wow amazing I just hope more debs gets creative with this.
I love people say that this is the future of gaming. I agree with that.
Then stupid people say we have ps2 graphics. They said future of gaming. Not now. Just look at the jump from iPad 1 to 2. Think 3 years from now when we have CPUs with quad cores and even better graphics.
Amazing by the devs that created real racing 2. Looks fantastic
I love people say that this is the future of gaming. I agree with that.
Then stupid people say we have ps2 graphics. They said future of gaming. Not now. Just look at the jump from iPad 1 to 2. Think 3 years from now when we have CPUs with quad cores and even better graphics.
Amazing by the devs that created real racing 2. Looks fantastic
dscuber9000
Apr 3, 12:54 PM
I saw the ad yesterday on TV and I really liked it. It didn't show a bunch of apps I'll never use, it kind of drove home the point that the future of computing will be something like this.
ericinboston
Apr 20, 02:38 PM
My Mom's iMac is on its last legs. I think I got it for her in early 2006 and its screen is having some streaking problems. Otherwise it still works, but a lot of the latest Apple software won't load on it. ...
I'd be pretty ticked if my 4+ year old, $1300+ personal computer was a)having screen problems and b)was basically on it's last leg.
Every single Wintel and Mac machines I buy last at least 5 years...a high percentage of them last until 10 but by then they are so old it's almost pointless (such as only having USB 1.1 ports or old screen resolutions or floppy drives or small storage space) even though they run just fine.
You might want to spend $200 and see if it's just a memory and/or general performance problem that you can fix yourself.
I'd be pretty ticked if my 4+ year old, $1300+ personal computer was a)having screen problems and b)was basically on it's last leg.
Every single Wintel and Mac machines I buy last at least 5 years...a high percentage of them last until 10 but by then they are so old it's almost pointless (such as only having USB 1.1 ports or old screen resolutions or floppy drives or small storage space) even though they run just fine.
You might want to spend $200 and see if it's just a memory and/or general performance problem that you can fix yourself.
leekohler
Mar 22, 01:00 PM
I don't believe any was born gay, that's my opinion. I believe you make the choice in your life, just like you make the choice on what career you want and college you desire to go to. I have friends that were once married (guy/girl) and then divorced because they liked their sex better. So now they are openly gay and happy.
You opinion may be true of some people- not all. I did not choose to be attracted to guys. I also could never have sex with a woman. It's not physically possible for me, if you get my meaning. Stop telling other people that you know everything about them. You don't. Not everyone is the same.
You opinion may be true of some people- not all. I did not choose to be attracted to guys. I also could never have sex with a woman. It's not physically possible for me, if you get my meaning. Stop telling other people that you know everything about them. You don't. Not everyone is the same.
ShiftClick
Apr 12, 10:24 PM
Not true. If you buy a Mac-app or iOS app all the updates for that version are free. A new version is a whole new program that must be bought again on both platforms.
What confuses you is that most iOS developers have decided to just keep updating their first version forever and not come out with a whole new version because they've decided that makes more sense on a smart phone than it does on a desktop machine.
But that's a business decision, not a technical one. A developer could do it either way on either platform.
MLB AtBat comes to mind, its been a purchase each year.
What confuses you is that most iOS developers have decided to just keep updating their first version forever and not come out with a whole new version because they've decided that makes more sense on a smart phone than it does on a desktop machine.
But that's a business decision, not a technical one. A developer could do it either way on either platform.
MLB AtBat comes to mind, its been a purchase each year.
Erwin-Br
Apr 21, 12:30 PM
If this were Google or M$ you apologists would be foaming at the mouth.
The anti-Google folks on this forum have used the privacy issue as ammunition against Google for quite some time now. To my surprise (or not really) all of the sudden privacy is not important to then anymore.
At least with Google you KNOW data is collected.
The anti-Google folks on this forum have used the privacy issue as ammunition against Google for quite some time now. To my surprise (or not really) all of the sudden privacy is not important to then anymore.
At least with Google you KNOW data is collected.
No comments:
Post a Comment