marksman
Apr 11, 03:17 PM
Personally, a bigger screen > Retina Display.
So a 50" SD tv is better than a 42" High Def tv?
So a 50" SD tv is better than a 42" High Def tv?
greenstork
Jul 27, 09:45 PM
but is still more productive because it handles more calculations per clock cycle
I'm no processor geek. I have a basic understanding of the terminology and how things work so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the advantages that the PPC had over Intel chips? Does this mean Intel is moving toward shorter pipes? Are we talking more instructions per clock cycle or what? What does "calculations" mean in this context?
This was one of the advantages of the G5 but IBM stalled and Intel has essentially blown past everybody. AMD will answer no doubt, but it appears that Intel has about a 6 month jump on them.
I'm no processor geek. I have a basic understanding of the terminology and how things work so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the advantages that the PPC had over Intel chips? Does this mean Intel is moving toward shorter pipes? Are we talking more instructions per clock cycle or what? What does "calculations" mean in this context?
This was one of the advantages of the G5 but IBM stalled and Intel has essentially blown past everybody. AMD will answer no doubt, but it appears that Intel has about a 6 month jump on them.
naco
Apr 8, 01:20 AM
What happened wasn't something Bestbuy corporate said to do. It was something each stores individual manager decided to do. Why? Who knows.
Most BestBuy stores who have a SWAS (Store within a store) Apple Store also have a representative from Apple manning the area. This Rep. sells their product and has knowledge on inventory. I would imagine that their improvement rate depends on how much Apple product is sold through their location. Possibly how this got back to Apple....
Most BestBuy stores who have a SWAS (Store within a store) Apple Store also have a representative from Apple manning the area. This Rep. sells their product and has knowledge on inventory. I would imagine that their improvement rate depends on how much Apple product is sold through their location. Possibly how this got back to Apple....
Mister Snitch
Mar 31, 02:46 PM
I knew it would happen eventually.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiw10vCqC3zOao5Jy_QySNo1k7YKAM4U3IuQODtVzF-uoLP07dV9t3PohAqCtegy43NwXkG5gPF3K4c3xKGQqNwiMsqZDVIRBSyYEmR4vIldJeyt3KwC9vueh6cPLQNjcY_j57X5S-Tt6fL/s1600/darth-vader-face.jpg
It was.... their DESTINY!
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiw10vCqC3zOao5Jy_QySNo1k7YKAM4U3IuQODtVzF-uoLP07dV9t3PohAqCtegy43NwXkG5gPF3K4c3xKGQqNwiMsqZDVIRBSyYEmR4vIldJeyt3KwC9vueh6cPLQNjcY_j57X5S-Tt6fL/s1600/darth-vader-face.jpg
It was.... their DESTINY!
Rodimus Prime
Feb 27, 09:39 PM
assume what the guy says is true it looks like he has some pretty strong grounds for a wrongful termination law suit.
AppliedVisual
Oct 15, 03:47 PM
... hmmm ... i just ordered a mac pro quad 3ghz ... 8 cores would be somehow nicer ;)
.a
The 8-core Mac Pro @ 2.33GHz should be about the same price as the quad-core 2.66GHz. Theoretically, the 8-core 2.66GHz should be about the same price as what you just ordered.
Before you seriously consider canceling, just be sure that your workflow can benefit from the various CPU cores. Very few applications can take advantage of dual-core CPUs, let alone quad-core. In most situations, you need to be running various instances or multiple apps at once that can handle 2 or more threads to benefit from these newer multi-core systems. If you do any 3D animation or heavy rendering, scientific computing, visualization, massive database management/development, etc... You may be a candidate. Depending on your requirements, a quad-core 3GHz may still be the best performing system for you.
.a
The 8-core Mac Pro @ 2.33GHz should be about the same price as the quad-core 2.66GHz. Theoretically, the 8-core 2.66GHz should be about the same price as what you just ordered.
Before you seriously consider canceling, just be sure that your workflow can benefit from the various CPU cores. Very few applications can take advantage of dual-core CPUs, let alone quad-core. In most situations, you need to be running various instances or multiple apps at once that can handle 2 or more threads to benefit from these newer multi-core systems. If you do any 3D animation or heavy rendering, scientific computing, visualization, massive database management/development, etc... You may be a candidate. Depending on your requirements, a quad-core 3GHz may still be the best performing system for you.
njvan
Apr 6, 07:31 AM
I have been hoping for some time that Final Cut Server be integrated into Final Cut. Considering Lion Server is included with Lion, I'd say the chances are pretty high! Finally, some real asset management!
slackpacker
Apr 25, 02:42 PM
Not guilty until proven guilty ... your turn to proof that they have the data. There is zero evidence for that, no matter how often you repeat the claim.
Its not that Apple is using this data its how its being used by others. Its Apples job to protect us not allow our private info to be used against us.
SEE >>>> www.cellebrite.com (http://www.cellebrite.com/forensic-products/ufed-physical-pro.html) - forensic-products
Its not that Apple is using this data its how its being used by others. Its Apples job to protect us not allow our private info to be used against us.
SEE >>>> www.cellebrite.com (http://www.cellebrite.com/forensic-products/ufed-physical-pro.html) - forensic-products
bretm
Apr 11, 09:51 AM
Then that just begs the question, "why haven't these people left already?" FCP has been fairly stagnant for years. There are plenty of other alternatives, so doesn't that kinda make them fanboyish too for sticking it out when up to this point Apple has given zero hints about when or how it will take FCP to the next level?
I'm not in the video editing biz, but if the pro s/w I use in my profession hobbled my efficiency and workflow the way you are carping about FCP, and there were viable alternatives, I would abandon it quicker than pigeon can snatch a bread crumb. Just sayin'.
I'm an independent corporate video editor. Work out of the house. I've been doing NLE since 1993. I started with VideoCube, then Media 100, then Avid, and then FCP in 2001. Avid had to get really behind (and threaten to leave the mac platform) before post houses made the switch. They really screwed that up at NAB that year. They had been languishing on the mac apps and releasing certain products- Symphony, DS, etc. on Windows only for a few years and at NAB one sales guy said to someone that they would essentially be phasing out the mac platform. They denied it later, but it was probably their plan. Then FCP came out and for the corporate folks that didn't need to spend 70,000 on an Avid system, it was wonderful. In the years that followed it closed the gap immensely and Avid fought back with cheaper products and options. It became a either or situation, with FCP being the slightly cheaper option. But with the new tech in the last 2 years, Apple has to leap frog again.
But still, it's so much more than just the app. Which is why Adobe (which has all the features everyone wants in FCP) is having such a hard time getting anyone but hacks to use it. There is an installed user base and an entire generation of people trained on FCP & Avid. And it was just the above fluke that gave FCP an in. It's one thing for an individual like me to switch, but for a company that uses contractors and other companies and rely on compatibility and workflows and such, it's a nightmare. I work with independent producers, and their clients are usually large companies. All 3 of us are using FCP. If I switch, I make life hard on the producer who is cutting together rough ideas on her laptop. When we deliver product, we deliver a product and the FCP project and files so that the big company, who has editing facilites of their own, can make changes without our help in an emergency. It's part of why they feel comfortable going out of house.
It's the smaller turnkey shops that do it all in house that can afford to keep totally cutting edge and buy every upgrade. But truth is, most good editing should rely on cuts and dissolves. You need anything fancier audio or graphic wise, you should be hiring an audio professional or a graphics professional.
I have the Adobe Master collection myself because I dabble in AE, PS, Flash and Dreamweaver. But the web authoring has just gone crazy. I can't keep up with all that. And AE is starting to get that way too. For me, I would just like FCP to upgrade and/or reinvent itself so I can integrate new tech simpler. Better authoring for Blu-Ray and DVD. Better web options. Importing file formats without log and transfer BS. And lets tune it up to make it use all the processors and be a ridiculous powerhouse. High end features rivaling Avid, and the touch and elegance of Apple. Plus a few neat tricks like offline editing on iPad or using the iPad as a controller, etc. would be cool and welcome.
I'm not in the video editing biz, but if the pro s/w I use in my profession hobbled my efficiency and workflow the way you are carping about FCP, and there were viable alternatives, I would abandon it quicker than pigeon can snatch a bread crumb. Just sayin'.
I'm an independent corporate video editor. Work out of the house. I've been doing NLE since 1993. I started with VideoCube, then Media 100, then Avid, and then FCP in 2001. Avid had to get really behind (and threaten to leave the mac platform) before post houses made the switch. They really screwed that up at NAB that year. They had been languishing on the mac apps and releasing certain products- Symphony, DS, etc. on Windows only for a few years and at NAB one sales guy said to someone that they would essentially be phasing out the mac platform. They denied it later, but it was probably their plan. Then FCP came out and for the corporate folks that didn't need to spend 70,000 on an Avid system, it was wonderful. In the years that followed it closed the gap immensely and Avid fought back with cheaper products and options. It became a either or situation, with FCP being the slightly cheaper option. But with the new tech in the last 2 years, Apple has to leap frog again.
But still, it's so much more than just the app. Which is why Adobe (which has all the features everyone wants in FCP) is having such a hard time getting anyone but hacks to use it. There is an installed user base and an entire generation of people trained on FCP & Avid. And it was just the above fluke that gave FCP an in. It's one thing for an individual like me to switch, but for a company that uses contractors and other companies and rely on compatibility and workflows and such, it's a nightmare. I work with independent producers, and their clients are usually large companies. All 3 of us are using FCP. If I switch, I make life hard on the producer who is cutting together rough ideas on her laptop. When we deliver product, we deliver a product and the FCP project and files so that the big company, who has editing facilites of their own, can make changes without our help in an emergency. It's part of why they feel comfortable going out of house.
It's the smaller turnkey shops that do it all in house that can afford to keep totally cutting edge and buy every upgrade. But truth is, most good editing should rely on cuts and dissolves. You need anything fancier audio or graphic wise, you should be hiring an audio professional or a graphics professional.
I have the Adobe Master collection myself because I dabble in AE, PS, Flash and Dreamweaver. But the web authoring has just gone crazy. I can't keep up with all that. And AE is starting to get that way too. For me, I would just like FCP to upgrade and/or reinvent itself so I can integrate new tech simpler. Better authoring for Blu-Ray and DVD. Better web options. Importing file formats without log and transfer BS. And lets tune it up to make it use all the processors and be a ridiculous powerhouse. High end features rivaling Avid, and the touch and elegance of Apple. Plus a few neat tricks like offline editing on iPad or using the iPad as a controller, etc. would be cool and welcome.
Scarlet Fever
Jul 20, 08:23 AM
wow. 8 cores. *drool
and i was just getting used to dual cores...
i cant wait till they turn up as refurbs... ill own one faster than you can say "no you dont"
and i was just getting used to dual cores...
i cant wait till they turn up as refurbs... ill own one faster than you can say "no you dont"
cozart
Jul 31, 12:00 PM
so i'm having a difficult time deciding what to do.
North Carolina's sales tax holiday is this coming weekend, just a couple of days before WWDC (of course!). i had every intention of buying a MacBook Pro during the holiday, but now i have no idea what to do.
assuming there's not a silent release of an updated MBP tomorrow...
will waiting be worth losing the 7.5% (somewhere between $150 and $200 depending on how i customize it) that i'll have to pay if i don't get it during the holiday?
should i go ahead and get it during tax free weekend in case there's not even an announcement at WWDC? or, if there is an announcement, should i go ahead and get it and then return it within the 14-day window, losing the 10% restocking fee.
so many options and this first-time mac buyer doesn't know what to do!
North Carolina's sales tax holiday is this coming weekend, just a couple of days before WWDC (of course!). i had every intention of buying a MacBook Pro during the holiday, but now i have no idea what to do.
assuming there's not a silent release of an updated MBP tomorrow...
will waiting be worth losing the 7.5% (somewhere between $150 and $200 depending on how i customize it) that i'll have to pay if i don't get it during the holiday?
should i go ahead and get it during tax free weekend in case there's not even an announcement at WWDC? or, if there is an announcement, should i go ahead and get it and then return it within the 14-day window, losing the 10% restocking fee.
so many options and this first-time mac buyer doesn't know what to do!
NJRonbo
Jun 14, 01:53 PM
Pre-order: In-store at 7am EST. He suggested to pre-order as soon as possible
What day? Tomorrow, Tuesday or Thursday?
What day? Tomorrow, Tuesday or Thursday?
shamino
Jul 14, 05:26 PM
Kind of odd/funny how we seem to be going backwards in processor speeds. Instead of 3.6 GHz Pentiums, we are looking at 2.x GHz Intel Cores. It would be interesting to see how well a single Core processor matches up to PowerPC, or a Pentium, or AMD.
It just means that Intel has finally publicly recognized the validity of the MHz Myth.
Raw clock speed is meaningless. You can get better performance at a slower clock speed if you can increase parallelism. This includes features like superscalar architecture (where multiple instructions are executed per clock), deep pipelining, hyperthreading, SIMD instructions, and multi-core chips.
However, I am finding one of my predicitions finally happen...it appears that a ceiling has been currently met on how fast the current line of processors can go, and now we are relying on multiple cores/processors to distribute work, instead of relying on just one fast chip.
That's a part of the equation, but not all of it.
Higher clock speeds are possible, but it's not worth the effort. Pumping up the clock speed creates serious problems in terms of power consumption and heat dissipation. Leaving the clock speed lower, but increasing parallelism will also boost performance, and keeps the power curve down at manageable levels.
It's worth noting that Intel has shipped P4-series chips at 3.4GHz. But the new chips (Woodcrest and Conroe) aren't being sold at speeds above 3GHz.
So when will we start seeing 8 chips in a computer? Perhaps this will become the new measurement...not processor speeds, but the number of processors (or cores).
Pay attention. The answer is "sooner than you think".
There have already been technology briefings from Intel that talk about 4-core chips in early and 32-core chips by 2010. Similar offerings are expected from AMD.
And the Xeon-MP series processors (which will, of course, eventually get all this tech) are designed with 8-way SMP in mind. A theoretical Xeon-MP based on this 32-core tech would produce a system with 256 cores. Of course, it is doubtful that anything other than a large server would be able to take proper advantage of this, so I wouldn't ever expect to find one on a desktop.
(FWIW, Intel is looking to Sun as a rival here. Sun's latest chip - the UltraSPARC T1 (http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/) - currently ships in an 8-core configuration, with each core capable of running four threads at a time, and only consuming 72W of power. Even at 1.2GHz - the top speed they're currently shipping at - this makes for a very nice server.)
It just means that Intel has finally publicly recognized the validity of the MHz Myth.
Raw clock speed is meaningless. You can get better performance at a slower clock speed if you can increase parallelism. This includes features like superscalar architecture (where multiple instructions are executed per clock), deep pipelining, hyperthreading, SIMD instructions, and multi-core chips.
However, I am finding one of my predicitions finally happen...it appears that a ceiling has been currently met on how fast the current line of processors can go, and now we are relying on multiple cores/processors to distribute work, instead of relying on just one fast chip.
That's a part of the equation, but not all of it.
Higher clock speeds are possible, but it's not worth the effort. Pumping up the clock speed creates serious problems in terms of power consumption and heat dissipation. Leaving the clock speed lower, but increasing parallelism will also boost performance, and keeps the power curve down at manageable levels.
It's worth noting that Intel has shipped P4-series chips at 3.4GHz. But the new chips (Woodcrest and Conroe) aren't being sold at speeds above 3GHz.
So when will we start seeing 8 chips in a computer? Perhaps this will become the new measurement...not processor speeds, but the number of processors (or cores).
Pay attention. The answer is "sooner than you think".
There have already been technology briefings from Intel that talk about 4-core chips in early and 32-core chips by 2010. Similar offerings are expected from AMD.
And the Xeon-MP series processors (which will, of course, eventually get all this tech) are designed with 8-way SMP in mind. A theoretical Xeon-MP based on this 32-core tech would produce a system with 256 cores. Of course, it is doubtful that anything other than a large server would be able to take proper advantage of this, so I wouldn't ever expect to find one on a desktop.
(FWIW, Intel is looking to Sun as a rival here. Sun's latest chip - the UltraSPARC T1 (http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/) - currently ships in an 8-core configuration, with each core capable of running four threads at a time, and only consuming 72W of power. Even at 1.2GHz - the top speed they're currently shipping at - this makes for a very nice server.)
BruinJohn
Sep 19, 02:40 AM
So, the shipping says 5-7 days for all the MacBooks, and 24 hours for the MBP. I think that means the MacBooks are getting refreshed next week. Either that, or the MacBooks are selling like crazy so its hard for Apple to keep up with demand. But the MBP have been out longer, and need a refresh. Just change them all Apple, and put the current models on sale. I'd love to get a white MB for around $900!
k995
Apr 20, 04:52 AM
And the design was released after the iPhone was out.
ANd you design hardware in a couple of weeks?
Doesnt really matter LG prada wich has simular concept and specs was designed AND shown over a month before iphone was ever shown.
LG can see the future?
Apple copies, samsung copies, LG copies,... everybody does it only only always wants to make believe everyone copies from them.
ANd you design hardware in a couple of weeks?
Doesnt really matter LG prada wich has simular concept and specs was designed AND shown over a month before iphone was ever shown.
LG can see the future?
Apple copies, samsung copies, LG copies,... everybody does it only only always wants to make believe everyone copies from them.
daneoni
Sep 19, 09:29 AM
why does anyone need to justify to you why they want 64-bit computing?
I was just gonna say that. All you people trying to tell people want they need and dont need are just wasting your time. At the end of the day people are gonna buy what they want regardless of what you preach to them.
I was just gonna say that. All you people trying to tell people want they need and dont need are just wasting your time. At the end of the day people are gonna buy what they want regardless of what you preach to them.
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
portishead
Apr 12, 12:54 PM
Then that just begs the question, "why haven't these people left already?" FCP has been fairly stagnant for years. There are plenty of other alternatives, so doesn't that kinda make them fanboyish too for sticking it out when up to this point Apple has given zero hints about when or how it will take FCP to the next level?
I'm not in the video editing biz, but if the pro s/w I use in my profession hobbled my efficiency and workflow the way you are carping about FCP, and there were viable alternatives, I would abandon it quicker than pigeon can snatch a bread crumb. Just sayin'.
People just love to complain. Yes Apple has been a little behind in the NLE business lately. They can't be on top all the time. Avid has made fantastic strides lately, and so has Adobe, although I would never advise using Premiere. You have to remember though Avid made a lot of bad moves, from nearly dropping Mac support to their closed hardware system. Just recently have they finally started to look like they got it together. FCP is being updated today, so all this nonsense about apple neglecting the pro market can stop. You may not like the update, but from what I've heard (not much) it's going to be pretty amazing.
I'm not in the video editing biz, but if the pro s/w I use in my profession hobbled my efficiency and workflow the way you are carping about FCP, and there were viable alternatives, I would abandon it quicker than pigeon can snatch a bread crumb. Just sayin'.
People just love to complain. Yes Apple has been a little behind in the NLE business lately. They can't be on top all the time. Avid has made fantastic strides lately, and so has Adobe, although I would never advise using Premiere. You have to remember though Avid made a lot of bad moves, from nearly dropping Mac support to their closed hardware system. Just recently have they finally started to look like they got it together. FCP is being updated today, so all this nonsense about apple neglecting the pro market can stop. You may not like the update, but from what I've heard (not much) it's going to be pretty amazing.
Thunderbird
Aug 7, 04:41 PM
So the cat won't be out of the bag until Spring 2007?
I thought Leopard was slated for December?
Maybe that means it will actually be launched at MWSF in January
I wonder if this is a case of Redmond playing chicken with Cuppertino...
Microsoft: "We're late, so show us your O/S first."
Apple: "Sorry, not until December. But feel free to release yours first"
Microsoft: "We've delayed till March, so you go first"
Apple: "Well, we've delayed till Spring too, so you go ahead."
:D
I thought Leopard was slated for December?
Maybe that means it will actually be launched at MWSF in January
I wonder if this is a case of Redmond playing chicken with Cuppertino...
Microsoft: "We're late, so show us your O/S first."
Apple: "Sorry, not until December. But feel free to release yours first"
Microsoft: "We've delayed till March, so you go first"
Apple: "Well, we've delayed till Spring too, so you go ahead."
:D
Dan==
Jul 27, 02:29 PM
While I like your thinking, your mock-up is wrong. If Apple are going to release a mid-Tower it has to appeal to both gamers and those looking for a headless iMac. They would really have to bring out about three main models, one which was basically an upgradable iMac spec for a couple to few hundred bucks less than the real deal and two higher spec conroes, (short of Mac Pro though). From what I can see, yours looks too small to easily customise, which would appeal to gamers.
Single optical, single HD (2nd slot free), assume better specs will mainly lie with graphics and ram.
I'm not much of a gamer, so take this with a healthy grain of salt...
Gamers seem to like to do a few things:
Single optical, single HD (2nd slot free), assume better specs will mainly lie with graphics and ram.
I'm not much of a gamer, so take this with a healthy grain of salt...
Gamers seem to like to do a few things:
dave420
Apr 25, 01:39 PM
but I really do not like the fact that the iPhone has a breadcrumbs database of my travels for the last 3 years!
This type of thing should not happen without users' knowledge... and it was. Or else this file would not be news!
I too don't like the idea of a device saving my location. On the other hand when I am using the Maps app for driving directions which sends my current location to Google, I would be naive to think that information isn't being stored somewhere.
This type of thing should not happen without users' knowledge... and it was. Or else this file would not be news!
I too don't like the idea of a device saving my location. On the other hand when I am using the Maps app for driving directions which sends my current location to Google, I would be naive to think that information isn't being stored somewhere.
Apple Corps
Sep 19, 09:10 AM
Im still on for today, 4 hours and counting.
0710 PDT - no updates yet - keep counting :-(
0710 PDT - no updates yet - keep counting :-(
dougny
Nov 29, 09:17 AM
Given your stance, I wonder how you feel about public libraries offering whole collections of CDs for patrons to "borrow". I think we all know what (many, not all) people are really doing with those CDs when they borrow them. Shouldn't we be doing something about these public institutions turning a blind eye to what is essentially sanctioned piracy?
Yes, I think those copies should be copy-protected.
Yes, I think those copies should be copy-protected.
wpotere
Apr 28, 06:45 AM
Wow, this thread and the ridiculous nature of this issue are hilarious. Seriously, you wonder why the US is going down the pan when the entire nation seems to get caught up in a fight over a bloody birth certificate?
Amusing isn't it?
Amusing isn't it?
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét