вторник, 24 мая 2011 г.

1920s hair and makeup

1920s hair and makeup. %IMG_DESC_1%
  • %IMG_DESC_1%


  • 100Teraflops
    Apr 6, 08:23 PM
    Hi guys,

    I realize that this is a Mac forum, so chances are good that everyone here is happy with their decision to switch from Windows to Mac. But since there's no sub-forum on a Windows forum called "I tried a Mac but didn't like it" I'll ask here. :)

    As someone that has used Windows since before Windows (DOS) and has never used a Mac, what might I NOT like about it?

    What might be uncomfortable or difficult?

    What major learning curves should I expect? Etc., etc...


    I'm sure you get what I'm asking here ;) so please share whatever info you can.

    Thanks in advance!

    Also, remember you asked what you might not like, not what you would like. Other forum members have included some pluses about OS X, but you are headed in the right direction if you went to an Apple store and spent time with a Mac. Keep us posted "JOE" LOL Sorry, I could not resist. :)




    1920s hair and makeup. %IMG_DESC_2%
  • %IMG_DESC_2%


  • AppliedVisual
    Oct 26, 10:34 AM
    Considering that Windows supports up to 64 CPU cores, and that 64 core Windows machines are available - it would be nice if you could show some proof that OSX on a 64 CPU machine scales better than Windows or Linux....

    Are you being overly pedantic or do you just want to argue? I said WinXP. -- "probably as good or better than WinXP". WinXP only supports two CPUs with a max of 4 cores each right now as per the EULA. The Windows kernel itself actually handles CPU division and scales dynamically based on addressable CPUs within a system all the way up to 256 CPUs or cores, with support for up to 4 logical or virtual CPUs each. And just think where those 64-CPU Windows systems are going to be in the near future as they're updraded with quad-core CPUs from AMD/Intel...

    BTW: You have to buy Windows Server Datacenter Edition to get to all those CPUs.




    1920s hair and makeup. %IMG_DESC_3%
  • %IMG_DESC_3%


  • ChrisA
    Sep 26, 01:40 AM
    So say I�m using my 8-core Mac Pro for CPU intensive digital audio recording. Would I be able to assign two cores the main program, two to virtual processing........

    That is not the way it's done. One does not asign threads to cores. What yu do is crate threads and let the operating system shedle cores to "ready" threads




    1920s hair and makeup. %IMG_DESC_4%
  • %IMG_DESC_4%


  • balamw
    Sep 12, 07:21 PM
    Here's another pic from the event today, taken by the Gizmodo guys...

    Looking at their other pictures answered a question I was wondering. Does this thing have an Ethernet port, and it apparently does. I'd rather not rely on wireless. Right now I have a VGA cable from my iMac to my TV, so I'd gain something by replacing it with a simple CAT5.

    I'm a bit surprised not to see any USB or FW ports on there though. I was betting on being able to hook up an optional HDD.

    B




    1920s hair and makeup. %IMG_DESC_5%
  • %IMG_DESC_5%


  • Silentwave
    Jul 13, 08:29 AM
    I've been wondering about this too. Surely they have the source code (or most of it) written in a high level language, right? If I'm not totally mistaken, there shouldn't be that much more work involved than a re-compilation for x86. Even if some filters or other stuff are hand coded in assembler, they already have that code in x86-assembler in the Windows version.

    Adobe is weird...but I think they have a lot more up their sleeve than just universal. I think they want it to run extremely well on intel macs, and perhaps continue work at the same time on making more of their features take advantage of quads.




    1920s hair and makeup. %IMG_DESC_6%
  • %IMG_DESC_6%


  • reden
    Aug 30, 09:35 AM
    I was looking through Apple's enviromental contributions about 3 weeks ago and there was nothing that I didn't like. I think Apple is really putting good efforts to help the enviroment. It's very tough to create a self-sustained company and recuding their footprint on this world as a computer company.

    Also, what these enviroment companies fail to realize is that Apple computers are different. People keep these computers for longer periods of time, they almost become novelty items. When the hell have you heard someone post a DELL LISA on EBAY? You know how people recycle their Macs for the most part? They pass them on to someone, schools, their local YMCA because it's always a useful piece of equipment that lasts for a good amount of time. They also reduce their footprint by not breaking down as much as their PC counter parts.

    Of all the Macs I've owned in the past 10 years, I've NEVER had to take my Mac to get it fixed such as a replaced motherboard or anything like that. Macs last longer, they are useful for longer periods of time, etc. LEARN TO EVALUATE THAT GREENwhatever. I've owned a G4, an iMac, a pizza-box powerpc, and I know where all these computers are located, and they still function. I know they're not in some dump.




    1920s hair and makeup. %IMG_DESC_7%
  • %IMG_DESC_7%


  • toddybody
    Apr 15, 10:21 AM
    Kind of like Anti-Obama = Racist.

    Yep. As Liberal as I like to take my rantings some times...I absolutely agree with what you folks are saying. You can be a Tea Party Republican White NRA member Evangelical Christian...and be an amazingly wonderful and loving person. I know too many to cite. Disagreeing is not hatred.




    1920s hair and makeup. %IMG_DESC_8%
  • %IMG_DESC_8%


  • pdjudd
    Oct 7, 11:24 PM
    I'm sorry OSX market share would most definitely go up. From a business perspective though it would would be a terrible move, you are right about that. Profits would drop as Apple would get next to nothing from the sale of software only. The market share of OSX would drop once Apple went bankrupt.

    Which is kinda the point. Short term improvements are meaningless if they go right back down. I don;t contend that they would go up, but the whole point of increasing sales is to hope that they stay up. Otherwise it�s just a waste of time. You can;t just say �market share will go up�. Their market share goes up the minute a Mac gets sold. We have to look at the long run which you point out, will invariably go down and possibly lower than the base. A net loss kinda contradicts the idea of increased market share.

    But this is all conjecture since Apple has already indicated that they are not playing the market share game.

    [QUOTE]Allowing greater access to your product almost always leads to larger sales volumes, but it isn't always in your best interest.
    Of course that statement is true. But does that require Apple to license their hardware out to others? I argue that it�s not the case. Taking the MS approach fundamentally changes Apple�s business. They don�t have to do that. Of course the Grueber article covers that too. There are tones of ways to increase access to your product. The tough part is making it profitable. Both Microsoft and Apple accomplish that goal just fine without getting into a fight that results in a bad outcome for Apple or MS.




    1920s hair and makeup. %IMG_DESC_9%
  • %IMG_DESC_9%


  • torbjoern
    Apr 24, 03:22 PM
    Were they of Pakistani/Bangladeshi origin by any chance? It seems in their culture to be possessive of their women.

    CULTURE. Nothing to do with Islam!!!!!!!! Family of Pakistani origin.

    Rebuttal provided.

    People from Pakistan and Bangladesh blame a lot of "bad habits" on cultural influence from India (I., B. and P. used to be one country). However, I have never heard of Indians behaving like that in Western countries. How come it seems so easy for Indians to integrate in Western societies, yet so hard for Pakistanis/Bangladeshis? It used to be one country, so there must be something other than just "culture"... care to tell me what it is? I already have an idea and you know very well what it is, so I'm asking you now. What is the big difference here?




    1920s hair and makeup. %IMG_DESC_10%
  • %IMG_DESC_10%


  • Apple OC
    Apr 23, 02:29 AM
    This is just a form of soldier conditioning. Don't fool yourself into thinking we don't do this to our own soldiers. That's why we get them when they are young 18 year olds who are impressionable and tell them they are doing this for "god and country". The good wolves will "go to heaven" protecting the sheep. "God Speed" in their mission. Being sent out to get blown up by an IED is as cannon fodderish as strapping one to your chest. The only difference is that the latter tactic is used in times of despiration against an overwhelmingly powerful enemy. Just like Kamakazis, Viet Cong, etc. And now these ppl make our TV's and clothing. ;)

    sorry but you are wrong ... we do not tell soldiers they are fighting for God or that there is anything such as being a martyr

    nice try though :rolleyes:




    1920s hair and makeup. %IMG_DESC_11%
  • %IMG_DESC_11%


  • Grimmeh
    Mar 18, 11:11 AM
    AT&T will never have my business anymore. I used AT&T’s service for my older iPhone 3G I had bought off eBay. After a year, they decided to take it upon themselves to have me buy their data plan. I have, and never have had, a need for a data plan. I rarely find myself without Wi-Fi or I do without for those rare occasions (as if their service never has it’s outages). I told them I don’t need it, or ever use it.

    They feel it’s fair to require me to pay for service I don’t need. My phone’s hardware is no different than the dinky little flip phone I’m forced to use until the contract expires (it was the only way for them to keep from charging me for data). Just because of the name of my phone they are telling me I need to buy more from them. That is terrifying if it’s legal.

    Now, they are telling people that because their service is split amongst devices you need to pay more, too? Hah! What if you had to pay extra to have more than one phone on your land line? Or you had to pay extra for having more than one computer on your home Internet? Or more if you use a wireless router?

    Wireless service companies in the U.S. (can’t speak for elsewhere) have people by the balls. I don’t like it.

    P.S. Isn‘t it illegal if they sniff your data? Against privacy laws?




    1920s hair and makeup. %IMG_DESC_12%
  • %IMG_DESC_12%


  • rovex
    Mar 12, 07:58 AM
    Ugh, just as soon as I had posted...



    I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.

    The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.

    You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?

    Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.

    I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.

    Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.

    Not entirely sure with "the west hasn't been able to embrace nuclear power." France are the global leaders in nuclear power in terms of how many nuclear plants there are in France, and how much electricity is being generated in the country through nuclear energy. powering something like 80% of the country's electricity. And The French EDF corporation has operations worldwide.

    More importantly, there have never been any severe deathly occurrences with nuclear power plants in france since a long time, and with the large number of plants they have (59), that's impressive.

    Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment, countries like china however continue to use coal as they main source of energy because they have tons of it and it's cheaper than making the foray into building nuclear plants. Which inevitably results in poor air quality all over the country.




    1920s hair and makeup. %IMG_DESC_13%
  • %IMG_DESC_13%


  • ThunderSkunk
    May 5, 05:51 PM
    Well I just came across this in the local paper:



    1920s hair and makeup. %IMG_DESC_14%
  • %IMG_DESC_14%


  • Ivan0310
    Apr 28, 07:34 AM
    Am I missing something with the title of this article? I don't see that Apple has 'slipped' to 4th place but instead that they increased their standing from 5th place overall due to iPad sales.




    1920s hair and makeup. %IMG_DESC_15%
  • %IMG_DESC_15%


  • Mac'nCheese
    Apr 23, 09:21 PM
    Maybe because the majority of atheists tend to have an attitude of more "religion sucks, I'm atheist" whereas religious people do not have an "atheism sucks, I'm theistic" attitude for the most part.
    .

    Wow. I see it completely the other way. The religious people look at the atheists as lost souls, sinners, who need to be saved. They want their beliefs to be the basis for our laws. They need to have god thrown in our faces, on our money, in our pledges, in our courtrooms, etc. etc. And this is in the land of the free where separation of church and state is supposed to be one our most basic rights!
    Don't believe me, check any poll about who people in the United States trust or who they would vote for. Atheists are always at the bottom of both lists!




    1920s hair and makeup. %IMG_DESC_16%
  • %IMG_DESC_16%


  • edifyingGerbil
    Apr 24, 10:16 AM
    I don't know, I don't have any answers. It's easier to destroy than create.

    A few European posters have backed up my assessments tho, about Europeans being less likely to be challenged on their beliefs. In fact, you're more likely to be viewed as odd if you profess a strong Christian belief.

    Maybe deep down I'm an atheist too, and I'm just entertaining the notion of agnosticism as a kind of nod to the great debt we owe Judaism and Christianity. If it wasn't for those two faiths which allowed for reformations (such a thing would be impossible under, say, Islam) then secular Western democracies would be vastly different.

    Don't forget, many of the batshit crazy rules that a lot of Christians are meant to follow are actually interpretations of the clergy, rather than being derived from the Bible. This was (along with papal bulls, simony, etc) what helped spur the creation of protestantism which did away with a lot of the incomprehensible dross inherent in Catholicism and tried instead to get back to the most fundamental message in the Bible.

    If Europe had succumbed to the advance of Islam, if Vienna had fallen in the 17th century things likely would be very different today. Europe would have produced as many Nobel Prize winners as the entire Islamic World




    1920s hair and makeup. %IMG_DESC_17%
  • %IMG_DESC_17%


  • ender land
    Apr 23, 10:31 PM
    Frankly, it doesn't take much faith to claim that nothing and no-one stands above nature (i.e. being supernatural).

    ...

    Do you realize the sheer magnitude of this statement?

    If even 0.0000001% of an incredibly lowball estimate as to the number of current Christians in the world (not to mention past Christians or other theistic religions) have legitimately experienced a supernatural event - pick one, doesn't matter which or how large or small it is - this is an incorrect statement.

    Even if 99.9999% of a billion people claiming supernatural events such as religion are lying, that is still a thousand experiences which invalidate your premise.

    Everything we can see is derived from nature.

    Spoken like a true empiricist.

    Where would God come from then?

    I have never understood why this is used as an argument against a god(s). Clearly, something exists now (as an aside, if you disagree with this statement there is absolutely no grounds to say religion is not true either, so I'm going to assume you do agree something does in fact exist, namely the universe). No matter how you believe, either atheism, creationism, flying spagetti monsterism, anything, at some point, there will be the problem that something always existed. Or existed "before." Whether it's God or a singularity point or whatever, all rational beliefs agree upon this point.

    Asking how God existed prior to the known universe is meaningless in terms of invalidating any religion.

    If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).


    Simple example: I make some robots. I put them into a world (let's say I put them in a room with no visible or perceptible interior doors/windows/etc). They interact and are reasonably self aware. Their entire world is this room. Gravity is "obvious" to them. Suddenly, I rotate the entire room 90 degrees. They would have a situation where the statement "no spiritual entity.. stand[s] above these laws."

    Clearly this does not necessarily prove god(s). But it does mean your belief as stated above is illogical (unless starting from the assumed premise that no god(s) exist, in which case your faith rests upon this belief).




    1920s hair and makeup. %IMG_DESC_18%
  • %IMG_DESC_18%


  • Cox Orange
    Apr 16, 07:00 AM
    Moving files of course...

    oh, ok, couldn't think that one could think of actually "cutting" a programm out of its place and "pasting" it in another place. :) Now, I understand what people mean by whole other way of thinking things.




    1920s hair and makeup. %IMG_DESC_19%
  • %IMG_DESC_19%


  • citizenzen
    Apr 22, 09:29 PM
    The atheists I've spoken to, here in the UK and various European countries, tend to not back up their atheism with reasons of any sort.

    Once again, it's the believers who haven't backed up their beliefs with reasoning or proof.

    Atheists simply shake their heads and think, "You folks are really gullible, aren't you?"

    If you're going to assert that something exists, the burden of proof rests on you, not those still waiting for proof, that hasn't surfaced, after more than 2,000 years.




    Piggie
    Apr 28, 02:06 PM
    Well, in the future I'm talking about involving cloud computing, the link will be there but it will be over the air. But it seems you are talking about not having any link to iTunes. But then what do you want to link it to? The Android app market? Cydia? I mean, you need to have some place to link it to in order to hook into the world of apps (plus backups, etc.) Even our PCs are not standalone by that definition, basically needing a Net connection to get much done.

    So what is an independent device to you? Independent of what?

    I want it to be like a PC, a Mac or a Laptop.

    I don't want to have to "Link" it to anything to do anything. I want a tablet to do everything itself without needing any linking to add functionality.

    I don't want to "Link" it to any market, I want to download programs onto it, in the same way you can download apps onto a PC or a Mac without using any market if I so wish.

    Backup?

    You only do "Backups" like this to mobile temp devices, like phones and PDA's.

    Sure, I can "COPY" my data onto a storage device if I wish, or perhaps another computer. Just like you do a PC or a Mac.

    I don't take a full image of my PC and sync it to an even bigger computer. As my PC "IS" my bigger computer.

    I want to be able to download data from my Tablet onto Any PC or MAC in the world by connecting a USB lead between the two and moving my data across, and perhaps upload some data from that PC or Mac also. Just like we can between Laptops, Macbooks, PC's and iMac's.

    That's what I want. A Free and independent Tablet, not linked or synced or docked to any "larger" computer.

    You don't do this with your Macbook as it's an independent computer in it's own right. All I want is the same from a Tablet.




    samcraig
    Mar 18, 11:59 AM
    WOW in plain English......... If you use a lot you should pay for it.

    OK I agree

    but AT&T are the ones who advertise Unlimited Data

    Should they not "Man UP"? and stop this hiding behind definitions of nonsense in a contract.



    You could also man up and admit that at the heart of your argument - you don't like that you signed a contract that up until now - was just fine and dandy. Now that ATT wants to actually hold you and others responsible for an element of that contract that you think you are entitled to - you want to cry "illegal."

    Good luck. ATT would be better off losing you as a customer rather than dealing with the, no doubt, obnoxious posts and calls into CSRs you will no doubt make.




    Stella
    Aug 29, 01:29 PM
    There seems to be plenty of people who appear not to care about the environment, which is an extremely sad point of view.

    In the last 200 years we've cut down vast amounts of trees ( the Lungs of the earth ), polluted the seas, the atmosphere , killed off many species of animals, etc. Over all that, all you people are saying "SO WHAT?".

    Get a ****ing life.

    If this planet dies, we die. This planet is a sick one, and we have to stop polluting - what ever happens to this planet, happens to us. We pollute this planet and that has consequences on every living thing on this planet like a domino affect.

    I suppose you don't care about your children. This is not OUR planet to do what we want, its our future childrens planet. The way we are going - we will royally **** this planet up for them and they will have to live with it. There will be plenty of wars over scarce resources such as Food, water, farming land etc. This will make todays problems with terrorism a walk in the park.




    ThunderSkunk
    Apr 14, 08:33 PM
    0. "Get Info"on multiple items. WTF.

    1. Crazy mouse acceleration curve. Why there isn't be a simple config option for this under mouse controls I'll never understand.

    2. Trackpad acceleration. Why there isn't a simple option for absolute coordinates on the trackpad, so your finger position is mapped 1:1 to your position on screen, I'll also never understand. The trackpads are big enough. A corresponding area of equal size on a wacom digitizer is fine. ...but i need to lug around a wacom just so I don't have to chase my cursor all over the screen? Crazy.

    3. Finder. If I delete a file, don't kick me out of the whole folder and make me come back in and go through all the files again to get back to where I was in the file list. It's rude.

    4. Finder. Apple has all the pieces, now if they'd just put em together. Cascade thru folders in column view, and when your selection lands on files, display details. Let us see previews in coverflow. Like this:




    Demoman
    Jul 13, 12:59 AM
    Please don't confuse SMP with multi-socket. You must have an SMP (or even an ASMP) operating system to use any computer with more than one core.

    It doesn't matter if the two cores are in one socket or two - both require SMP in order to manage the cores.

    Saying that a dual-socket system is "SMP" and a single-socket dual-core system is "not SMP" shows that you don't quite understand the computer technology required to do multi-processing.

    I know what Symetrical Multi-Processing is. Thanks.



    Комментариев нет:

    Отправить комментарий