hob
Jan 9, 01:42 PM
I was gonna say this thread feels like an AA meeting, but it's more like we're all waiting for our next dose of crack or something... :p
Finlandboy
Apr 11, 01:14 PM
Bought a temporary cheap case for my iPad 2 off Amazon due to be broke from buying the ipad and spring break.
but im extremely happy with it and it is higher quality then i expected so i'm content. :D
but im extremely happy with it and it is higher quality then i expected so i'm content. :D
davepoint
Aug 10, 11:58 AM
Curious that they haven't changed the revision??
reubs
Apr 6, 11:17 AM
http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/3282/photoapr06114008am.jpg (http://img709.imageshack.us/i/photoapr06114008am.jpg/)
Re-upped on my sunburst mix
Mmm. Publix.
Re-upped on my sunburst mix
Mmm. Publix.
escapehere
Oct 29, 06:16 AM
Are we talking about the FreeBSD license or the NetBSD license. The NetBSD license isn't free and that is what OSX is based off of and apple paid to use the license.
OSX is based off FreeBSD and mach. Apple may have taken some code from NetBSD over the years but FreeBSD is the predominate source for the BSD layer. It's pretty common knowledge, it even used to be mentioned on Apple's website, although I don't know if it still is.
The NetBSD licence is a BSD-style licence. That's a free licence. FreeBSD and NetBSD often use each other's code for various things. View the licences for yourself:
http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html
http://www.netbsd.org/Goals/redistribution.html
If Apple did use any NetBSD code, they may possibly have made a donation to the NetBSD foundation but they certainly didn't "pay" for a licence.
OSX is based off FreeBSD and mach. Apple may have taken some code from NetBSD over the years but FreeBSD is the predominate source for the BSD layer. It's pretty common knowledge, it even used to be mentioned on Apple's website, although I don't know if it still is.
The NetBSD licence is a BSD-style licence. That's a free licence. FreeBSD and NetBSD often use each other's code for various things. View the licences for yourself:
http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html
http://www.netbsd.org/Goals/redistribution.html
If Apple did use any NetBSD code, they may possibly have made a donation to the NetBSD foundation but they certainly didn't "pay" for a licence.
Abstract
Sep 7, 07:35 PM
George Bush doesn't care about black people, but STEVE DOES!
*Kanye hugs Steve*
Take a photo.
Print the advert.
Done.
*Kanye hugs Steve*
Take a photo.
Print the advert.
Done.
Starship77
Apr 15, 03:34 PM
Actually, shooting up close with a wide-angle lens will give you exactly that distortion. Here is a photo I just took of a REAL iPhone with a 17mm lens. Sorry about the fuzziness - handheld and did not use a flash:
http://www.marulla.com/files/perspective.jpg
So I don't think text in the 3rd photo is skewed. That being said, I agree it's a fake.
What gives the bad impression is that, since is a 3D rendering, it doesn't have lens distortion (because the guy "forgot" about it). Real lenses always gives you some barrel distortion because they are curved, and the standard camera in a 3D software is always just straight 3 point perspective. When you put it in an angle that gives too much perspective it looks strange.
Specially the first image, is a good 3D, but is not realistic enough to be perceived as a photo because of:
1- Lack of lens distortion
2- Very linear noise, obviously applied.
3- Un-natural light
4- Not so realistic dynamic range and exposure
5- Shadows are too smooth for that kind of flash-light
6- Light is too uniform
7- The model is good, but you can see that there are some hard edges that are not natural.
8- Doesn't have any camera meta-data. (he "forgot" to fake that also)
and a few other minor things... but yeah, it's a very good 3D work!:)
if you want to do a little test with your abilities to tell if it's cg or not:
http://area.autodesk.com/fakeorfoto/challenge
a little too easy though... ;)
http://www.marulla.com/files/perspective.jpg
So I don't think text in the 3rd photo is skewed. That being said, I agree it's a fake.
What gives the bad impression is that, since is a 3D rendering, it doesn't have lens distortion (because the guy "forgot" about it). Real lenses always gives you some barrel distortion because they are curved, and the standard camera in a 3D software is always just straight 3 point perspective. When you put it in an angle that gives too much perspective it looks strange.
Specially the first image, is a good 3D, but is not realistic enough to be perceived as a photo because of:
1- Lack of lens distortion
2- Very linear noise, obviously applied.
3- Un-natural light
4- Not so realistic dynamic range and exposure
5- Shadows are too smooth for that kind of flash-light
6- Light is too uniform
7- The model is good, but you can see that there are some hard edges that are not natural.
8- Doesn't have any camera meta-data. (he "forgot" to fake that also)
and a few other minor things... but yeah, it's a very good 3D work!:)
if you want to do a little test with your abilities to tell if it's cg or not:
http://area.autodesk.com/fakeorfoto/challenge
a little too easy though... ;)
OrangeSVTguy
Dec 13, 11:25 AM
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)
Good. I'm still in my 30 days to cancel AT&T if this indeed come out after Christmas.
Good. I'm still in my 30 days to cancel AT&T if this indeed come out after Christmas.
doubleatheman
Apr 15, 06:15 PM
total fake, its ugly, the writing is askew, no place for an antennia, and the edges look sharp, like they will hurt!
OceanView
Apr 15, 05:42 PM
Can't tell if it's real or fake but the meta data showing CS4 is a bit of an issue.
But I would love it if it was made from Aluminum.
But I would love it if it was made from Aluminum.
GFLPraxis
Apr 15, 02:02 PM
The OP was ambiguous ... I read it that the weapons used on 9/11 were still not banned. As opposed to not banned at the time.
Hasn't anyone noticed that not a single US plane has been hijacked in the past 10 years? A quick look at Wikipedia shows 7 US planes hijacked in the 1970s, several in the 80s and 90s. Four planes were hijacked in 2001 (all on the same day....) - and then not a single US, European, Japanese plane has been hijacked.
Something is working.....
1980s - Aer Ligus Dublin - London; Air France Frankfurt - Paris; Rio Airways Killen, Texas - Dallas, Texas; TWA Athens - Beirut; Egypt Air Athens - Cairo; Malev Hungarian Airlines Prague - ?? ;
1990s - Lufthansa Frankfort - Cairo; FedEx flight Memphis - ??; Air Malta Malta - Turkey; All Nippon (domestic flight);
I've only listed those flights that departed from a European (and one Japanese) airport.... not European airlines that departed from non-European airports. After 9/11 there were still a number of hijackings, but the closest they come to European departure points are Nicosia, and Tirana. Though there was one from a Mexican Airport and one from a Caribbean airport. The Mexican hijacking was by a man threatening a bomb, but I don't think they actually found one.
I'll grant you the eighties. Now we get in to the ninties and there's...one in the United States, and it's an employee hijacking a company plane (FedEx).
So what's the correlation you're going for here? I'm not seeing it.
I see a decline from the 70's to the 80's, but the 90's seems in line with 2K.
We go ten years without a single commercial U.S. flight getting hijacked. Then 9/11. Then ten more years without. I'm not seeing some amazing statistical shift as a result of TSA. Further, I'm not seeing anything that justifies the new full body scanners. These were added without any supporting reasons.
If your argument is that security changes post 9/11 have made things better than the previous decade, I think showing it via statistics will be shaky at best. Zero passenger-carrying hijacks in the U.S. in the decade before 9/11 followed by zero passenger-carrying hijacks in the U.S. in the decade after 9/11 is not a statistic you can make a very solid conclusion off of.
And if your argument is that last year's full body scanners are justified, I would request much more evidence.
And how may people have the TSA found?
You tell me.
And how many people have not even bothered to try, because they were afraid of getting caught?
Same number as in the 90's.
Hasn't anyone noticed that not a single US plane has been hijacked in the past 10 years? A quick look at Wikipedia shows 7 US planes hijacked in the 1970s, several in the 80s and 90s. Four planes were hijacked in 2001 (all on the same day....) - and then not a single US, European, Japanese plane has been hijacked.
Something is working.....
1980s - Aer Ligus Dublin - London; Air France Frankfurt - Paris; Rio Airways Killen, Texas - Dallas, Texas; TWA Athens - Beirut; Egypt Air Athens - Cairo; Malev Hungarian Airlines Prague - ?? ;
1990s - Lufthansa Frankfort - Cairo; FedEx flight Memphis - ??; Air Malta Malta - Turkey; All Nippon (domestic flight);
I've only listed those flights that departed from a European (and one Japanese) airport.... not European airlines that departed from non-European airports. After 9/11 there were still a number of hijackings, but the closest they come to European departure points are Nicosia, and Tirana. Though there was one from a Mexican Airport and one from a Caribbean airport. The Mexican hijacking was by a man threatening a bomb, but I don't think they actually found one.
I'll grant you the eighties. Now we get in to the ninties and there's...one in the United States, and it's an employee hijacking a company plane (FedEx).
So what's the correlation you're going for here? I'm not seeing it.
I see a decline from the 70's to the 80's, but the 90's seems in line with 2K.
We go ten years without a single commercial U.S. flight getting hijacked. Then 9/11. Then ten more years without. I'm not seeing some amazing statistical shift as a result of TSA. Further, I'm not seeing anything that justifies the new full body scanners. These were added without any supporting reasons.
If your argument is that security changes post 9/11 have made things better than the previous decade, I think showing it via statistics will be shaky at best. Zero passenger-carrying hijacks in the U.S. in the decade before 9/11 followed by zero passenger-carrying hijacks in the U.S. in the decade after 9/11 is not a statistic you can make a very solid conclusion off of.
And if your argument is that last year's full body scanners are justified, I would request much more evidence.
And how may people have the TSA found?
You tell me.
And how many people have not even bothered to try, because they were afraid of getting caught?
Same number as in the 90's.
AhmedFaisal
Apr 13, 11:23 AM
His point was remove the TSA security check and only have only armed air marshals. Bringing a gun to a bomb fight is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
My point was that the TSA security does provide a buffer to keep terrorists from boarding a plan packed with explosives where an armed masrhal is going to be useless.
The world we once knew no longer exists, time to get used to it.
No, my point was to scale it back to what it was before 9/11 and maintain both domestic and international security at the pre 9/11 level of international security.
My point was that the TSA security does provide a buffer to keep terrorists from boarding a plan packed with explosives where an armed masrhal is going to be useless.
The world we once knew no longer exists, time to get used to it.
No, my point was to scale it back to what it was before 9/11 and maintain both domestic and international security at the pre 9/11 level of international security.
KingYaba
Mar 3, 09:38 PM
I heard somewhere that federal employees are not able to collectively bargain for their benefits package. If this is true, why are recent states' attempts to restrict unionized bargaining seen as being so draconian, and why isn't there an outcry to give federal employees the same "rights"?
The outcry, in this case, is the jail sentencing for striking.
The outcry, in this case, is the jail sentencing for striking.
ciTiger
Apr 15, 06:13 PM
I love Apple but these are bad news.
The more competition there is the better products get for the end user! :mad:
The more competition there is the better products get for the end user! :mad:
RichP
Aug 13, 12:13 PM
klaus,
so, based on your experience, we can still say the "new" 23s are junk? That really is upsetting.
I gave up on 23s a while ago, although I would really like the increased resolution. I agree with what you said, for the price we pay, we should get quality and consistency, (especially with a company that really pushes dual screen configurations) There is NOTHING more irritating than when the monitors dont "match"
so, based on your experience, we can still say the "new" 23s are junk? That really is upsetting.
I gave up on 23s a while ago, although I would really like the increased resolution. I agree with what you said, for the price we pay, we should get quality and consistency, (especially with a company that really pushes dual screen configurations) There is NOTHING more irritating than when the monitors dont "match"
JohnnyQuest
Mar 17, 01:03 AM
The fact that you feel good about yourself after doing this, to the point where you come on here to gloat, speaks volumes about your character.
Pretty grotesque.
Pretty grotesque.
ozontheroad
Nov 16, 10:45 PM
I threw up in my mouth a little bit� for a month with the Intel switch.
I may have to hospitalized if this actually happens.
You can't TM that... I remember Jack saying that on Will&Grace like 3 seasons ago. :D
also used in Dodgeball
By the way I hope this rumor isn't true.
I may have to hospitalized if this actually happens.
You can't TM that... I remember Jack saying that on Will&Grace like 3 seasons ago. :D
also used in Dodgeball
By the way I hope this rumor isn't true.
Phat_Pat
Sep 7, 11:06 PM
Its Music. Music now a days contains some curse words. There were no 5 year olds in that audience. 5 year olds are not going to watch a keynote. Everyone in that audience has heard the word and are mature enough to handle it. Just because he doesn't like Bush doesn't mean he's a bad person. Its his opinion. I have mine too...
His music is fantastic, and seriously who here doesn't have a song in their music library with the f-bomb in it.
Just because you don't like rap doesn't mean you should put him down. In his genre he is up there with the best. And of course apple's heard his songs. its the number one song/album on iTms. Not everyone in apple is 50+ years old and listens to nothing but the Beach Boys and Cher.
hallmark maxine quotes
His music is fantastic, and seriously who here doesn't have a song in their music library with the f-bomb in it.
Just because you don't like rap doesn't mean you should put him down. In his genre he is up there with the best. And of course apple's heard his songs. its the number one song/album on iTms. Not everyone in apple is 50+ years old and listens to nothing but the Beach Boys and Cher.
gnasher729
Oct 2, 05:06 PM
This isn't a consumer-end hack, it is a retailer-end re-implementation of Fairplay (presumably clean room) for interoperability purposes (legal in Europe, I don't know about the USoA since the DMCA etc).
The DMCA would have nothing to do with this. This doesn't remove any copy prevention, it adds it. I just can't see what anyone would want to do with this technology. The only scenario that makes sense: If you are a music band without any record contract, and the iTunes Music Store refuses to sell your music, you could use software like this to add Fairplay DRM to your music, and you could offer the music on your webpage and sell it to anyone who uses iTunes - which would be about 90 percent of all people who are interested in music and computers at all. Of course you could sell the music without any DRM.
The DMCA would have nothing to do with this. This doesn't remove any copy prevention, it adds it. I just can't see what anyone would want to do with this technology. The only scenario that makes sense: If you are a music band without any record contract, and the iTunes Music Store refuses to sell your music, you could use software like this to add Fairplay DRM to your music, and you could offer the music on your webpage and sell it to anyone who uses iTunes - which would be about 90 percent of all people who are interested in music and computers at all. Of course you could sell the music without any DRM.
unlimitedx
May 3, 09:24 PM
another great video!
mac-er
Jan 12, 08:46 AM
Steve wasn't smug. He's a good salesman.
Plus, what you were seeing was his RDF...apparently you are impervious to it.
Plus, what you were seeing was his RDF...apparently you are impervious to it.
davidcarswell
Jul 22, 05:13 AM
The Nokia phone have not the same bars/signal ratio as the iphone 4.
xAnthony
Mar 19, 03:34 AM
So again, it's a freaking phone... It's not a status symbol.
True.. But studies have shown that iPhone owners have more intercourse (decided to use the proper term) than Android phone owners. So I could see it resembling a status symbol.
True.. But studies have shown that iPhone owners have more intercourse (decided to use the proper term) than Android phone owners. So I could see it resembling a status symbol.
MacNut
Apr 27, 05:23 PM
I meant that supposedly the issue is that women don't feel comfortable having men in the bathrooms because they'll look and stuff. What if instead of men there's a lesbian there? Isn't that the same thing?Only if they are walking around naked. There are still going to be stalls right?
No comments:
Post a Comment