zeppiecr
Sep 25, 03:39 PM
Prob a dumb question but is my mac fast enough to run aperture?
20 inch imac
2 gb ram
intel 2.0
20 inch imac
2 gb ram
intel 2.0
Cougarcat
Apr 29, 05:35 PM
The iOS slider does not make any sense when quickly looking at options on screen. One has to click-drag-release for the slider function to work, not a hugh problem on iOS since its on a small screen.
Considering that Mac OS is not touch based, makes additional steps to accomplish the same task and is less intuitive.
You didn't have to click-drag. Just click your option, exactly as before. (Same as iOS, you don't have to drag the slider, you can press on your option.)
Although, the design of the slider made it look like you had to do this, which is probably why they changed it.
Considering that Mac OS is not touch based, makes additional steps to accomplish the same task and is less intuitive.
You didn't have to click-drag. Just click your option, exactly as before. (Same as iOS, you don't have to drag the slider, you can press on your option.)
Although, the design of the slider made it look like you had to do this, which is probably why they changed it.
Qwest905
Apr 6, 01:57 PM
lol thanks...
no need to wait in line when here in canada(not sure if it's the same in the US)
in order to buy the ipad in the apple store now..you have to logon to their website at 9pm in hope to be able to reserve an ipad for pickup the next day
and congratulations on your engagement =)....i'm still in my honeymoon phase as i was married back in november!!
no need to wait in line when here in canada(not sure if it's the same in the US)
in order to buy the ipad in the apple store now..you have to logon to their website at 9pm in hope to be able to reserve an ipad for pickup the next day
and congratulations on your engagement =)....i'm still in my honeymoon phase as i was married back in november!!
cwd92589
Apr 15, 01:04 PM
FAKE!!!!!
Although would be a cool design!
Although would be a cool design!
rorschach
Apr 29, 04:12 PM
Why are you people talking about scroll bars and scrolling? This article is about the buttons in sub-pane selectors. Not scrolling.
The article was just edited. It had a paragraph about the iOS-style scrollbars being gone.
The article was just edited. It had a paragraph about the iOS-style scrollbars being gone.
xlight
Aug 1, 01:49 PM
Norway is doing you all a favor. Do not act as stupid ass consumers with no brain. It is your right when you by music to listen to i where ever you want it too.
You payed for it didn't you so now it is yours ....
DRM is ******** and it takes away your rights as a consumers.
Act now stop that ********.
One more thing. At least we have the freedom and our goverment tries too help.
You payed for it didn't you so now it is yours ....
DRM is ******** and it takes away your rights as a consumers.
Act now stop that ********.
One more thing. At least we have the freedom and our goverment tries too help.
dethmaShine
Apr 29, 04:51 PM
I can go to View --> Organize Alphabetically on my SL MBA. Same result. All icons, no categories.
I've never seen this before, but it's not new to this Lion build.
Sorry, I may have never used that before.
Thanks for letting me know.
I've never seen this before, but it's not new to this Lion build.
Sorry, I may have never used that before.
Thanks for letting me know.
ikir
Mar 25, 03:03 AM
Happy Birthday OS X!!! You're my favorite OS:apple:
kuebby
Apr 6, 12:28 PM
Well I'm glad it's free, I'd hate to pay $.99 to look at ads.
maflynn
Apr 19, 06:58 AM
Heh, I've seen that video it's classic. However, if you were to say fair-is-fair, MS publicly announced their road map for what became Vista before XP even came out. Apple KNEW what MS was working on. No body knew what Apple was working on.
The problem was that all that MS publicly announced for "Longhorn" never really made it into "vista" So while everyone knew what MS was working on, MS was unable to deliver.
The problem was that all that MS publicly announced for "Longhorn" never really made it into "vista" So while everyone knew what MS was working on, MS was unable to deliver.
LagunaSol
Apr 6, 08:16 AM
This smells like Google. :(
Music_Producer
Sep 12, 07:20 AM
I doubt I'll get any sleep tonight :eek: (5.15 am PST right now) Can't wait *drool*
Rodimus Prime
Jul 30, 11:20 AM
I completely agree
.
Perhaps - but maybe that would just cause us to burn more fuel at power plants rather than look for alternative fuels...and who knows what that would do to the price and availability of electricity? To me, it feels like we'd just be exchanging one problem for another.
While that part is true that we would burn more fuel at power planets one advantage you are forgetting about is the power planets are by far much more efficient at producing power than the internal combustion engine on your car. On top of that it is much easier to capture and clean the pollution the power planet produces over what the cars produce. On top of that we can easily most our power over to other renewable choices.
I think we should be less worried (in the short term) about hybrids and electric cars and more concerned with just lowering per capita fuel consumption.
McCafe#39; wallpaper (guilty)
PS3 wallpaper v2 by Joeymad
PS3 Wallpaper
MGSR Raiden PS3 wallpaper
PS3 Wallpaper Image
wallpapers for the PS3.
![]()
.
Perhaps - but maybe that would just cause us to burn more fuel at power plants rather than look for alternative fuels...and who knows what that would do to the price and availability of electricity? To me, it feels like we'd just be exchanging one problem for another.
While that part is true that we would burn more fuel at power planets one advantage you are forgetting about is the power planets are by far much more efficient at producing power than the internal combustion engine on your car. On top of that it is much easier to capture and clean the pollution the power planet produces over what the cars produce. On top of that we can easily most our power over to other renewable choices.
I think we should be less worried (in the short term) about hybrids and electric cars and more concerned with just lowering per capita fuel consumption.
0815
Apr 25, 12:20 PM
Uh, no... the iPhone 4 was called the iPhone 4 because it was the 4th version of the iPhone (not because it came after 3 in 3G). If the next iPhone is called the 4S, that'd be the 5th iPhone model. So the next one after that would be called the iPhone 6.
It would go:
iPhone
iPhone 3G
iPhone 3GS
iPhone 4
iPhone 4S (or iPhone 5)
iPhone 6
Agree. It is just stupid that they in the early years named the phones after features ( iPhone2="now we have 3G network" and iPhone3="now we have a faster phone with 3G network") and than suddenly switched to the generation number .... This is really confusing to many people (my favorite ones are the one that still claim that the iPhone 3G is the "iPhone third generation" ....)
I just hope they stick now with generation numbers and no more 'added feature suffix' .... so would the '4S' be for the bigger screen or for more speed ? - if they have both, would it be the iPhone 4SS ???) -> just bad naming schema.
It would go:
iPhone
iPhone 3G
iPhone 3GS
iPhone 4
iPhone 4S (or iPhone 5)
iPhone 6
Agree. It is just stupid that they in the early years named the phones after features ( iPhone2="now we have 3G network" and iPhone3="now we have a faster phone with 3G network") and than suddenly switched to the generation number .... This is really confusing to many people (my favorite ones are the one that still claim that the iPhone 3G is the "iPhone third generation" ....)
I just hope they stick now with generation numbers and no more 'added feature suffix' .... so would the '4S' be for the bigger screen or for more speed ? - if they have both, would it be the iPhone 4SS ???) -> just bad naming schema.
NoSmokingBandit
Nov 14, 09:47 PM
MW2's plot wasn't too ludicrous. You infiltrate a Russian terrorist cell, you're commanding officer betrays you, starts a war between the US and Russia. The only ludicrous part that I can remember is a nuke blowing apart the ISS.
There are many things wrong with MW2's plot. Instead of typing them all out i'll just copypasta them.
�As the mission opens, we�re treated to General Shepherd reciting a litany of Makarov�s excesses over a montage of shocking headlines. Makarov is an internationally known figure of menace, then, with a Russian military record. So when he confidently machineguns his way through the airport without even bothering to put on a mask, are we to believe that the Russian authorities weren�t able to identify him from security camera footage?
Instead, Russia blames a nobody CIA agent found dead at the scene who was killed by a point-blank pistol shot to the head. That doesn�t raise any red flags at all? The obvious conclusion is that the whole thing was an American plot, and that a full-scale invasion of the continental US is the appropriate response. The transition to the Takedown favela mission begets more confusion, such as: how did Shepherd tie the shell casings to Rojas? Meticulous analysis of the cutscene indicates that he actually re-created a 3D model of a shell casing from security camera footage, which was sufficiently hi-rez to make a match against a big bullet database. So the Russians, who had the actual shell casings to analyze, couldn�t figure that out? The security footage was crisp enough to recreate minute detail on a spent shell casing, but not of sufficient quality to identify Makarov�s face. Conclusion: Makarov�s face is smaller than a bullet.
�When the warriors of 141 get to South America, they make short work of tracking down their man. Unfortunately, HQ won�t send a helicopter to extract them from the favela so Soap rings up his old pal Nikolai on a payphone. Luckily, the Russian informant just so happens to be tooling around Rio in a chopper and pops right over to pick them up. The mission itself, dashing weaponless across rooftops and frantically leaping to safety, was brilliant fun in the heat of the moment. But upon reflection, we must concede that nothing about the scenario makes a bit of sense. But look, it�s Nikolai!!
�With his newfound freedom, Price�s first order of business is to launch a nuclear warhead at the east coast of the United States, with the goal of snuffing out the Russian invasion. Of course, he wasn�t planning to nuke America outright. When a nuclear explosion occurs in space, the only effect is an EMP blast that destroys all unshielded electronics in its line of sight.
While it made for an intensely dramatic scene as the burst rippled across America and demolished the ISS, there�s no way Price could have launched a missile from a Russian nuclear sub by himself. Did he just ring up Nikolai on a payphone to get the launch codes? How did he singlehandedly defeat the physical safety measures? You don�t just push the glowy red button with the mean face on it. There are elaborate control systems in place to prevent just such unauthorized launches.
http://static.gamesradar.com/images/mb/GamesRadar/us/Games/M/Modern%20Warfare%202/Everything%20else/plot%20holes/Finished/112009_modernwarfare2_obs06--article_image.jpg
Above: Two people have to turn launch keys simultaneously to fire a real nuclear missile
One more thing: how did Price get it to detonate in space, anyhow? We�re pretty sure that wasn�t part of the missile�s original instructions. Regardless, if the Russians were serious about their �kill America� plan from the get-go, they probably would have launched HEMP and nuclear strikes of their own as a precursor to the invasion.
�Once the Russians have been successfully repelled, Shepherd and Task Force 141 get down to the business of mopping up Makarov. Shepherd calls out two potential hiding places, the �last safe havens on earth for Makarov and his men.� Incidentally, no one stopped to wonder how Shepherd suddenly uncovered these safe havens or, if he knew about them all along, why they weren�t investigated after the airport massacre. But wait! Intel gathered at one of the safehouses links Makarov to Shepherd: cue the shocking murder of Ghost and Roach at Shepherd�s hands.
Devastated, Price and Soap moan about how they�re all alone in the world with no one to turn to. Umm, guys? Aren�t you technically still officers in the British Armed Forces? Sure Shepherd was calling the duo �terrorists,� but America�s credibility on the world stage was shot to hell after the airport incident. Someone over at SAS would remember the heroes who gunned down Zakhaev and send help. No? OK, better just grab Nikolai and go after the bad guy yourselves.
Theres more you can read on your own, but these are the biggest imo.
http://www.gamesradar.com/f/modern-warfare-2s-glaring-plot-holes-exposed/a-20091120123332495077/p-1
There are many things wrong with MW2's plot. Instead of typing them all out i'll just copypasta them.
�As the mission opens, we�re treated to General Shepherd reciting a litany of Makarov�s excesses over a montage of shocking headlines. Makarov is an internationally known figure of menace, then, with a Russian military record. So when he confidently machineguns his way through the airport without even bothering to put on a mask, are we to believe that the Russian authorities weren�t able to identify him from security camera footage?
Instead, Russia blames a nobody CIA agent found dead at the scene who was killed by a point-blank pistol shot to the head. That doesn�t raise any red flags at all? The obvious conclusion is that the whole thing was an American plot, and that a full-scale invasion of the continental US is the appropriate response. The transition to the Takedown favela mission begets more confusion, such as: how did Shepherd tie the shell casings to Rojas? Meticulous analysis of the cutscene indicates that he actually re-created a 3D model of a shell casing from security camera footage, which was sufficiently hi-rez to make a match against a big bullet database. So the Russians, who had the actual shell casings to analyze, couldn�t figure that out? The security footage was crisp enough to recreate minute detail on a spent shell casing, but not of sufficient quality to identify Makarov�s face. Conclusion: Makarov�s face is smaller than a bullet.
�When the warriors of 141 get to South America, they make short work of tracking down their man. Unfortunately, HQ won�t send a helicopter to extract them from the favela so Soap rings up his old pal Nikolai on a payphone. Luckily, the Russian informant just so happens to be tooling around Rio in a chopper and pops right over to pick them up. The mission itself, dashing weaponless across rooftops and frantically leaping to safety, was brilliant fun in the heat of the moment. But upon reflection, we must concede that nothing about the scenario makes a bit of sense. But look, it�s Nikolai!!
�With his newfound freedom, Price�s first order of business is to launch a nuclear warhead at the east coast of the United States, with the goal of snuffing out the Russian invasion. Of course, he wasn�t planning to nuke America outright. When a nuclear explosion occurs in space, the only effect is an EMP blast that destroys all unshielded electronics in its line of sight.
While it made for an intensely dramatic scene as the burst rippled across America and demolished the ISS, there�s no way Price could have launched a missile from a Russian nuclear sub by himself. Did he just ring up Nikolai on a payphone to get the launch codes? How did he singlehandedly defeat the physical safety measures? You don�t just push the glowy red button with the mean face on it. There are elaborate control systems in place to prevent just such unauthorized launches.
http://static.gamesradar.com/images/mb/GamesRadar/us/Games/M/Modern%20Warfare%202/Everything%20else/plot%20holes/Finished/112009_modernwarfare2_obs06--article_image.jpg
Above: Two people have to turn launch keys simultaneously to fire a real nuclear missile
One more thing: how did Price get it to detonate in space, anyhow? We�re pretty sure that wasn�t part of the missile�s original instructions. Regardless, if the Russians were serious about their �kill America� plan from the get-go, they probably would have launched HEMP and nuclear strikes of their own as a precursor to the invasion.
�Once the Russians have been successfully repelled, Shepherd and Task Force 141 get down to the business of mopping up Makarov. Shepherd calls out two potential hiding places, the �last safe havens on earth for Makarov and his men.� Incidentally, no one stopped to wonder how Shepherd suddenly uncovered these safe havens or, if he knew about them all along, why they weren�t investigated after the airport massacre. But wait! Intel gathered at one of the safehouses links Makarov to Shepherd: cue the shocking murder of Ghost and Roach at Shepherd�s hands.
Devastated, Price and Soap moan about how they�re all alone in the world with no one to turn to. Umm, guys? Aren�t you technically still officers in the British Armed Forces? Sure Shepherd was calling the duo �terrorists,� but America�s credibility on the world stage was shot to hell after the airport incident. Someone over at SAS would remember the heroes who gunned down Zakhaev and send help. No? OK, better just grab Nikolai and go after the bad guy yourselves.
Theres more you can read on your own, but these are the biggest imo.
http://www.gamesradar.com/f/modern-warfare-2s-glaring-plot-holes-exposed/a-20091120123332495077/p-1
bartelby
Nov 14, 02:51 AM
made even worse when the enemy spawns on top of you, or behind you, all the time.
That's what's driving me mad at the moment.
That's what's driving me mad at the moment.
leekohler
Apr 25, 07:26 PM
I agree they are idiots and I already stated they should call the cops.
OP, I clicked on the article and the title is different from this thread. I do agree that the employees on duty at McDonald's be held responsible in the beating of a trans woman.
I know. Sloppy on my part, but I had to shorten the title. It would not fit.
OP, I clicked on the article and the title is different from this thread. I do agree that the employees on duty at McDonald's be held responsible in the beating of a trans woman.
I know. Sloppy on my part, but I had to shorten the title. It would not fit.
GoKyu
Apr 12, 08:00 AM
The price of office is built into the price of the computer, just as the price of iLife is built into the price of a mac - standard accounting practice. You're really not getting iLife for free just like you're not getting office for free.
I think the last version of Office that actually shipped "free" (full version) with PCs was Office 2003. Unless a third party like Dell allows you to purchase it when you're ordering a custom machine, you don't get Office for free anymore.
Retail purchasing (which is how a LOT of people buy computers) for Office 2010 is: You now get what's called "Office 2010 Starter (http://www.microsoft.com/oem/en/products/office/pages/office_2010_starter.aspx)" - Word & Excel. Both are no longer time-limited, BUT are now feature-limited and ad-supported (ads rotate every 45 seconds.) You no longer get Powerpoint at all, and of course they aren't gonna give you Outlook for free (that's what makes you upgrade from "Home & Student" to "Home & Business" or "Professional".)
The image below is directly out of Microsoft's retail training, where they tell you explicitly that Office does NOT come pre-loaded (but customers assume it does.)
I think the last version of Office that actually shipped "free" (full version) with PCs was Office 2003. Unless a third party like Dell allows you to purchase it when you're ordering a custom machine, you don't get Office for free anymore.
Retail purchasing (which is how a LOT of people buy computers) for Office 2010 is: You now get what's called "Office 2010 Starter (http://www.microsoft.com/oem/en/products/office/pages/office_2010_starter.aspx)" - Word & Excel. Both are no longer time-limited, BUT are now feature-limited and ad-supported (ads rotate every 45 seconds.) You no longer get Powerpoint at all, and of course they aren't gonna give you Outlook for free (that's what makes you upgrade from "Home & Student" to "Home & Business" or "Professional".)
The image below is directly out of Microsoft's retail training, where they tell you explicitly that Office does NOT come pre-loaded (but customers assume it does.)
bigdz68
Nov 24, 04:42 AM
Oddly enough, from the education store, you can't get the extra discounts. Well at least not on the ipod...but on the government store ... YOU CAN!
I would have save an extra $30 if I went through the gvt store. OOOPS! Hopefully someone else benefits from this post and doesnt make the same mistake! I will probably call apple in the morning and see if I can get the extra savings ... but just a heads up if you are a gvt employee!
:D
I would have save an extra $30 if I went through the gvt store. OOOPS! Hopefully someone else benefits from this post and doesnt make the same mistake! I will probably call apple in the morning and see if I can get the extra savings ... but just a heads up if you are a gvt employee!
:D
iJohnHenry
Apr 16, 07:20 PM
I love that video. Cracks me up every time I see it.
First time viewer.
So, Honey Badgers are gay, or what??
First time viewer.
So, Honey Badgers are gay, or what??
8CoreWhore
Apr 12, 03:43 AM
There is the objective and the subjective. Objectively, one might say - hey, W8 is stable, and functional, etc...
Subjectively, people like what they like...
Subjectively, people like what they like...
arn
Jan 8, 09:36 PM
- Thin MacBook
- 15"/17" MacBook Pro Revisions
- iPhone Software Update
- iTunes Rentals, Fox digital copies etc...
arn
- 15"/17" MacBook Pro Revisions
- iPhone Software Update
- iTunes Rentals, Fox digital copies etc...
arn
MacinDoc
Nov 16, 07:53 PM
That would mean we'd have to pay more for intel machines. intel is giving apple big discounts for not using AMD at all.
Link?
Link?
stephanos180
Apr 15, 12:59 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)
I call BS on this, Johnnie Ive wouldn't make a non rounded design like that, the lines are too harsh.
I agree. Also, they wouldn't've made the Apple logo so small.
I call BS on this, Johnnie Ive wouldn't make a non rounded design like that, the lines are too harsh.
I agree. Also, they wouldn't've made the Apple logo so small.
