ssk2
Apr 14, 04:20 PM
But the iPhone 4 is still the best smartphone on the market and will continue to be so well past June.
If you want to choose to get an inferior phone because you want to chase after a spec sheet that is on you. That does not change reality.
LOL. Right.
Opinion is not fact. This works on both sides of the argument, I concede.
Still, you cannot say the iPhone is the best smartphone on the market, just as someone else can't say the Atrix is the best. Different strokes for different folks!
If you want to choose to get an inferior phone because you want to chase after a spec sheet that is on you. That does not change reality.
LOL. Right.
Opinion is not fact. This works on both sides of the argument, I concede.
Still, you cannot say the iPhone is the best smartphone on the market, just as someone else can't say the Atrix is the best. Different strokes for different folks!
jmgregory1
Mar 22, 04:01 PM
I can assure that doubling the 256MB of the first iPad is not enough for people that need a lot of multitask, like me.
I don't need to own an iPad 2.
The competitors have 1GB RAM, iPad 2 has 512MB.
It's simple: Apple is always behind hardware-wise because they like to priorize esthetics and appearance (besides the "so wonderful OS" ad). It's been this way for Macs, it seems to be the same way for iPads.
Android phones are selling more than iPhone.
iPhone has started a market, competitors are improving it.
iPad has started a market, competitors are improving it.
If you just can't recognize how multitask works better with 1GB RAM and true background apps (QNX, Honeycomb), then you deserve to use a limited thing like an iPad.
I've only bought the first iPad because there were no competitors at that time (and I hate netbooks), but now things are different. To be honest, A LOT different.
People said that the iPhone was going to be the best phone out there, but the market is showing something different.
People say the iPad is the best tablet out there, but it seems that the market is going to show something different.
There are 2 sides: Apple fanboys and realistic people.
I like products, not brands.
This is a simple look at a complex process. Adding more ram may be good in a system that doesn't control app usage well, but it's something completely different when the system can control for app processes. If you have a product that works perfectly well with a certain spec, is there a need to add more of a certain thing? What benefit does it offer? Apple is a smart company - why build more cost into hardware if you can make your software make up any potential shortcomings in hardware?
Of course the competition has to market its products as being different in some way compared to Apple and convince you, the buying public, that it means something to have double this or less of that.
Frankly, I think these companies should be trying to come up with the next thing - instead of just trying to compete against the iPad - but they won't do that. They'll wait until Apple releases the next new thing and just copy that. It's pitiful really.
I don't need to own an iPad 2.
The competitors have 1GB RAM, iPad 2 has 512MB.
It's simple: Apple is always behind hardware-wise because they like to priorize esthetics and appearance (besides the "so wonderful OS" ad). It's been this way for Macs, it seems to be the same way for iPads.
Android phones are selling more than iPhone.
iPhone has started a market, competitors are improving it.
iPad has started a market, competitors are improving it.
If you just can't recognize how multitask works better with 1GB RAM and true background apps (QNX, Honeycomb), then you deserve to use a limited thing like an iPad.
I've only bought the first iPad because there were no competitors at that time (and I hate netbooks), but now things are different. To be honest, A LOT different.
People said that the iPhone was going to be the best phone out there, but the market is showing something different.
People say the iPad is the best tablet out there, but it seems that the market is going to show something different.
There are 2 sides: Apple fanboys and realistic people.
I like products, not brands.
This is a simple look at a complex process. Adding more ram may be good in a system that doesn't control app usage well, but it's something completely different when the system can control for app processes. If you have a product that works perfectly well with a certain spec, is there a need to add more of a certain thing? What benefit does it offer? Apple is a smart company - why build more cost into hardware if you can make your software make up any potential shortcomings in hardware?
Of course the competition has to market its products as being different in some way compared to Apple and convince you, the buying public, that it means something to have double this or less of that.
Frankly, I think these companies should be trying to come up with the next thing - instead of just trying to compete against the iPad - but they won't do that. They'll wait until Apple releases the next new thing and just copy that. It's pitiful really.
jubjub
Aug 6, 08:48 AM
Does anyone think the recent "problems" at Apple are going to have any effect on what happens Monday.
Story: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/05/BUGAHKBK3H1.DTL
If there are products that are they "maybe" list, this might put them on the "go" list. Big news pushes stock prices up and pushes the "problem" stories on page 2.
You might be right..
Other than that I find it amusing that "One more thing" is now a mainstream thing.
Story: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/05/BUGAHKBK3H1.DTL
If there are products that are they "maybe" list, this might put them on the "go" list. Big news pushes stock prices up and pushes the "problem" stories on page 2.
You might be right..
Other than that I find it amusing that "One more thing" is now a mainstream thing.
mygoldens
Mar 22, 06:34 PM
It won�t sell because the iPad lines will block the view in store.
I will probably buy one! :D
There will not be any lines and hey, they might just have some stock!
What a novel idea! Have stock for a product that you say you produce, WOW what a concept!
I will probably buy one! :D
There will not be any lines and hey, they might just have some stock!
What a novel idea! Have stock for a product that you say you produce, WOW what a concept!
eMagius
Aug 7, 07:36 PM
As others have said, Time Machine is likely either a direct port of Sun's ZFS, or an equivalent implementation in HFS+.
I don't think we can say exactly how things work underneath. Windows 2003 offers differential snapshots without making massive changes to NTFS, for example. It would be neat if Apple did throw its weight behind ZFS, but I'm pretty sure it's not going to happen with 10.5.
According to today's keynote, Apple has finally added support for network drives. But I wonder -- does this mean only other Leopard Macs, or any shared drive that the Mac can connect to? Can I index a Windows shared drive from my Mac, or even a Unix NFS mount? Or is it only other Macs? Once again, if it's limited to other Leopard Macs, then this would be useless for a lot of people (mostly ME! :D).
I don't see how this would work for anything other than other Leopard (maybe Tiger, with a software update) Macs. Spotlight has to have the indexes pre-generated, after all.
Finally, gotta wonder what those "top secret" features are, and why so secret?
Call me a cynic, but I'd say Apple either hasn't implemented them yet or hasn't thought of them yet.
I don't think we can say exactly how things work underneath. Windows 2003 offers differential snapshots without making massive changes to NTFS, for example. It would be neat if Apple did throw its weight behind ZFS, but I'm pretty sure it's not going to happen with 10.5.
According to today's keynote, Apple has finally added support for network drives. But I wonder -- does this mean only other Leopard Macs, or any shared drive that the Mac can connect to? Can I index a Windows shared drive from my Mac, or even a Unix NFS mount? Or is it only other Macs? Once again, if it's limited to other Leopard Macs, then this would be useless for a lot of people (mostly ME! :D).
I don't see how this would work for anything other than other Leopard (maybe Tiger, with a software update) Macs. Spotlight has to have the indexes pre-generated, after all.
Finally, gotta wonder what those "top secret" features are, and why so secret?
Call me a cynic, but I'd say Apple either hasn't implemented them yet or hasn't thought of them yet.
Silentwave
Aug 27, 06:58 PM
That's the old pricing mate :) 1.83 GHz Yonah/ Merom is $240.
Now. But how much have iMac prices changed since release? I don't think they have. They released the iMac and MBP lines around the same time Yonah was intro'ed, and the iMacs did not see any speed bumps or price changes that I know of. Therefore they should be able to implement similar pricing with Conroe @ 2.4GHz, just with a profit margin closer to the iMac release amounts.
Of course they could always go for the 2.13GHz version, which is less expensive, and still plenty faster than the existing 1.83 :)
Now. But how much have iMac prices changed since release? I don't think they have. They released the iMac and MBP lines around the same time Yonah was intro'ed, and the iMacs did not see any speed bumps or price changes that I know of. Therefore they should be able to implement similar pricing with Conroe @ 2.4GHz, just with a profit margin closer to the iMac release amounts.
Of course they could always go for the 2.13GHz version, which is less expensive, and still plenty faster than the existing 1.83 :)
Bengt77
Aug 17, 04:11 PM
I'll just wait until the 4GHZ Mac Pro. I wonder what that bad boy can do.:rolleyes:
Yeah. I'm waiting for the 16GHz Mac Pro Super Duper Ultra Extreme. Boy, you don't even want to know what that machine will be able to do...
Yeah. I'm waiting for the 16GHz Mac Pro Super Duper Ultra Extreme. Boy, you don't even want to know what that machine will be able to do...
Blue Velvet
Apr 27, 02:43 PM
Are you calling me a liar? I literally went to WhiteHouse.gov, opened the file in Illustrator, and moved the text around myself. :rolleyes:
You said you opened the file in Indesign which is what sparked my interest, because that's something you can't technically do. We've already established long ago that you're untrustworthy, so it's fair to be suspicious.
Some things never change. Laughably bias.
You're so cute when you're whining. :)
are there any graphic designers here who can help?
Sure there are. Been designing since before you were born. This file does not have layers. It has objects within one group. A document created in 1961 will have been scanned, possible inadvertently split into sections as it's not even a linked group or even a compound path. MattSepata is correct to some extent, but I doubt it's been OCRed. Just a crappily-made PDF... which hasn't even been security-locked.
Nice try, but no cookie, Sherlock.
You said you opened the file in Indesign which is what sparked my interest, because that's something you can't technically do. We've already established long ago that you're untrustworthy, so it's fair to be suspicious.
Some things never change. Laughably bias.
You're so cute when you're whining. :)
are there any graphic designers here who can help?
Sure there are. Been designing since before you were born. This file does not have layers. It has objects within one group. A document created in 1961 will have been scanned, possible inadvertently split into sections as it's not even a linked group or even a compound path. MattSepata is correct to some extent, but I doubt it's been OCRed. Just a crappily-made PDF... which hasn't even been security-locked.
Nice try, but no cookie, Sherlock.
Benjy91
Mar 31, 02:30 PM
Lol, the fragmentation that "doesnt exist".
I knew it would bite them in the ass someday.
I knew it would bite them in the ass someday.
coolbreeze
Apr 7, 11:37 PM
If there is one indisputable fact of this world...
Those on message boards that say they hate Best Buy, are the first to grab the Sunday ad and visit the store at least weekly.
Bank on it.
Oh I believe you. They go into BB on Sunday morning, buy their gadget, decide if they like it, get home, order from Amazon, return to said BB once they receive the same, cheaper item.
Retail and B&M is doomed.
Those on message boards that say they hate Best Buy, are the first to grab the Sunday ad and visit the store at least weekly.
Bank on it.
Oh I believe you. They go into BB on Sunday morning, buy their gadget, decide if they like it, get home, order from Amazon, return to said BB once they receive the same, cheaper item.
Retail and B&M is doomed.
^squirrel^
Jul 15, 02:21 PM
Good: Dual-Core 2GHz Intel Xeon, 512MB DDR 667, ATI Radeon X1600 Pro, 250GB Hard Drive,$1799
Better: Dual-Core 2.33GHz Intel Xeon, 1GB DDR2 667, ATI Radeon X1800 Pro, 320GB Hard Drive, $2499
Best: Two Dual-Core 2.66 Intel Xeon, 1GB DDR2 667, ATI Radeon X1800 Pro, 320GB Hard Drive, $3299
I wonder if i'll be able to upgrade to the X1900?
Better: Dual-Core 2.33GHz Intel Xeon, 1GB DDR2 667, ATI Radeon X1800 Pro, 320GB Hard Drive, $2499
Best: Two Dual-Core 2.66 Intel Xeon, 1GB DDR2 667, ATI Radeon X1800 Pro, 320GB Hard Drive, $3299
I wonder if i'll be able to upgrade to the X1900?
BoyBach
Nov 29, 06:30 AM
But do you really think a court will decide that way. Not likely, especially if it's a judge from the wealth maximisation school of thought.
It would be an interesting case, and yes, it is possible.
It would be an interesting case, and yes, it is possible.
-aggie-
Jun 11, 08:32 AM
With the Shack getting the iPhone, the iPhone may have finally jumped the shark.
Simiber
Apr 25, 01:54 PM
I'm not from the US so if someone with some legal background over there could point out to me how this would work..? Where I'm from you have to have suffered damages in order to sue someone, otherwise a government regulator would just impose a fine on the company or require them to stop what they are doing..? How have these people (who are suing apple) suffered losses as a result of this apparent spying technology..?
ThunderSkunk
Apr 25, 03:04 PM
...if there is no apparent good in tracking personal data, one should object to it.
I think thats the whole thing this boils down to. Apple doesn't track you, your phone does (course, so does everything else), but Apple enables this by default because they see apps being able to utilize Location Services as a feature that'll enhance the user experience.
If they'd:
The World is Yours 5. Halftime
the world is yours nas. the
the world is yours nas. the
the world is yours nas.
I think thats the whole thing this boils down to. Apple doesn't track you, your phone does (course, so does everything else), but Apple enables this by default because they see apps being able to utilize Location Services as a feature that'll enhance the user experience.
If they'd:
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
SPUY767
Nov 28, 10:12 PM
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Just so you know, flame bait is almost always ignored. So don't bother.
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Just so you know, flame bait is almost always ignored. So don't bother.
Dalton63841
Apr 8, 04:18 AM
As best as I can figure, it works like this. Managers get good grades if they sell certain amounts of products.
I'll use low numbers here. Let's say BB corporate wants you to sell at least 5 iPads a day to make your "Quota". One day, 10 iPads come in. You sell all ten, yay, you made quota for the day.
But the next day, none get shipped to the store. So, boo, you didn't make quota, since you didn't have any to sell.
So, if you get 10 the day after that, & not knowing if more are coming tomorrow, you sell 5, make quota, and hold the other 5 for the next day when, low and behold, none get shipped to the store. You still have 5 left over to sell, which you do, and again you make quota for the day.
Basically the more days you make quota, the happier BB corporate is, and the better chance Mr. Manager gets a bonus down the road.
Mr. Manager (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4DMPmoJkJQ)
This guy has a firm understanding of how retail chains work. This is EXACTLY the case and how MOST major chains operate.
I'll use low numbers here. Let's say BB corporate wants you to sell at least 5 iPads a day to make your "Quota". One day, 10 iPads come in. You sell all ten, yay, you made quota for the day.
But the next day, none get shipped to the store. So, boo, you didn't make quota, since you didn't have any to sell.
So, if you get 10 the day after that, & not knowing if more are coming tomorrow, you sell 5, make quota, and hold the other 5 for the next day when, low and behold, none get shipped to the store. You still have 5 left over to sell, which you do, and again you make quota for the day.
Basically the more days you make quota, the happier BB corporate is, and the better chance Mr. Manager gets a bonus down the road.
Mr. Manager (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4DMPmoJkJQ)
This guy has a firm understanding of how retail chains work. This is EXACTLY the case and how MOST major chains operate.
slackpacker
Apr 10, 07:56 AM
Are you speculating or have you just disobeyed your NDA? ;-)
speculating from what the video showed and a little past history industry knowledge
speculating from what the video showed and a little past history industry knowledge
SevenInchScrew
Aug 19, 09:21 AM
I'm 100% sure the GT site says all the cars were remodeled for the ps3, as in not the ps2 cars.
http://us.gran-turismo.com/us/news/d5247.html
recreated
As in not copypasta'd over from gt4.
All that I get from that quote is that they are using older models, but that they will, obviously, be rendered in the new GT5 engine. So, the marketing team can say all they want, but actual screen shots of Standard� cars do not show much improvement, if any at all, resolution increase notwithstanding.
Do we know if all cars have fully modelled interiors or if thats just for the luxury cars?
No, the only cars that have an interior view are the Premium� models. From NSB's link above...
Standard cars do not support vehicle interior camera views.
http://us.gran-turismo.com/us/news/d5247.html
recreated
As in not copypasta'd over from gt4.
All that I get from that quote is that they are using older models, but that they will, obviously, be rendered in the new GT5 engine. So, the marketing team can say all they want, but actual screen shots of Standard� cars do not show much improvement, if any at all, resolution increase notwithstanding.
Do we know if all cars have fully modelled interiors or if thats just for the luxury cars?
No, the only cars that have an interior view are the Premium� models. From NSB's link above...
Standard cars do not support vehicle interior camera views.
Gamoe
Mar 31, 06:43 PM
Open doesn't necessarily mean "supported". All it means is that the source code is available and you can do whatever you want with it (as long as you keep that same source open as well). If some other group or company wants to take on and support an Android variant, they can do so and support it with updates. As far as I understand open source licences, Google can't prevent this.
On the other hand, Google has no obligation to support every single variant out there, or put the Google stamp on something they don't approve because of quality, compatibility, consistency or any number of other concerns. That said, withholding the Honeycomb source may be stretching it.
If you're going to licence your project as open source, then you do actually have to release the source. I know there's often a delay with commercial products. I suppose the tolerance of the open source community depends on the reason and the amount of time the code is held back.
On the other hand, Google has no obligation to support every single variant out there, or put the Google stamp on something they don't approve because of quality, compatibility, consistency or any number of other concerns. That said, withholding the Honeycomb source may be stretching it.
If you're going to licence your project as open source, then you do actually have to release the source. I know there's often a delay with commercial products. I suppose the tolerance of the open source community depends on the reason and the amount of time the code is held back.
Erasmus
Aug 27, 04:08 AM
Except they get pissed off if you give them ideas.
Or was that Nintendo?
Both, probably. Legalities.
OK, that's wierd. Who would get angry about having research into what the public wants done for them???
No wonder Nintendo sucks so much.
BTW, Congrats on ur 500 Posts!
Or was that Nintendo?
Both, probably. Legalities.
OK, that's wierd. Who would get angry about having research into what the public wants done for them???
No wonder Nintendo sucks so much.
BTW, Congrats on ur 500 Posts!
nagromme
Aug 7, 04:16 PM
Will Time Machine mean that you can't permanently delete any file? What about something confidential which you want to "e-shred"?
Never fear: it says you can exclude any data from Time Machine that you wish.
(Plus, if you change your mind about a file, you have OS X's Secure Empty Trash--which might also purge your backup, if it's connected. But whatever the implementation, I'm sure Apple has thought about this--we just don't have 100% off the details yet.)
My main concern overall about Leopard is that feature creep is going to cut into ease of use.
Only if you are FORCED to use Spaces. But like Expos�, Dashboard, and even the right mouse button, it will be optional. Apple is sensitive about beginner simplicity.
Never fear: it says you can exclude any data from Time Machine that you wish.
(Plus, if you change your mind about a file, you have OS X's Secure Empty Trash--which might also purge your backup, if it's connected. But whatever the implementation, I'm sure Apple has thought about this--we just don't have 100% off the details yet.)
My main concern overall about Leopard is that feature creep is going to cut into ease of use.
Only if you are FORCED to use Spaces. But like Expos�, Dashboard, and even the right mouse button, it will be optional. Apple is sensitive about beginner simplicity.
notjustjay
Apr 27, 10:28 AM
"Calculating a phone's location using just GPS satellite data can take up to several minutes."
Then how is car-navigation working?
The same thing - it can take up to a few minutes to establish a solid GPS lock. I own a Garmin GPSMAP 60csx (a hiking/geocaching GPS) which is getting a bit long in the tooth now (purchased in 2006) but at the time, the SiRFstar III chip that powers it was able to establish a location WAY faster than the previous GPS units I owned -- but even that meant a minute, maybe two. All of the Garmin and TomTom traffic GPS's I've used take a similar amount of time to acquire a signal lock.
Then how is car-navigation working?
The same thing - it can take up to a few minutes to establish a solid GPS lock. I own a Garmin GPSMAP 60csx (a hiking/geocaching GPS) which is getting a bit long in the tooth now (purchased in 2006) but at the time, the SiRFstar III chip that powers it was able to establish a location WAY faster than the previous GPS units I owned -- but even that meant a minute, maybe two. All of the Garmin and TomTom traffic GPS's I've used take a similar amount of time to acquire a signal lock.
No comments:
Post a Comment