Jaro65
Aug 6, 03:19 PM
The U.S. can build cars just as good as the best of the rest of the world, but only when we want to - which is a shame, because we historically haven't wanted to.
I see some changes in the US auto industry now and would actually consider purchasing something from Ford. Let's just hope that this trend continues.
I see some changes in the US auto industry now and would actually consider purchasing something from Ford. Let's just hope that this trend continues.
asxtb
Sep 12, 07:40 AM
In reality the whole 'Showtime' theme is really just to introduce a new movie staring Steve. :eek:
Tallest Skil
Jan 9, 07:00 PM
1. Steve Jobs will announce an "official" Apple Rumors blog, then sue himself for breach of contract.
2. The edditors of MacRumors.com will lurn to check theire posts for speling and grammor errors before poosting.
3. A retired Bill Gates will join the Apple board, bringing with him the much needed stale and unoriginal perspective on software Apple needs to finally break into the corporate sector.
4. Free ham with every purchase of an iPod Touch.
5. Someone will post something in this forum that isn't pure uneducated speculation, self-righteous nonsense, or pseudo-insider gobbledeegook.
Tanj in torment, that made me laugh! Sues himself, BAH! And the Gates thing wouldn't be bad at all. It would be the ULTIMATE ADMITTANCE OF APPLE'S SUPERIORITY.
2. The edditors of MacRumors.com will lurn to check theire posts for speling and grammor errors before poosting.
3. A retired Bill Gates will join the Apple board, bringing with him the much needed stale and unoriginal perspective on software Apple needs to finally break into the corporate sector.
4. Free ham with every purchase of an iPod Touch.
5. Someone will post something in this forum that isn't pure uneducated speculation, self-righteous nonsense, or pseudo-insider gobbledeegook.
Tanj in torment, that made me laugh! Sues himself, BAH! And the Gates thing wouldn't be bad at all. It would be the ULTIMATE ADMITTANCE OF APPLE'S SUPERIORITY.
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
more...
vincenz
Apr 8, 12:55 PM
I wonder what the special promotion is.
deejemon
Feb 3, 05:56 AM
*
more...
MathiasMag
Jul 21, 11:56 AM
The slow pace of messages here shows that this has gone from being important to the masses and the trolls to now be a small problem. Previous threads (those from before the videos and pressconference) added three pages in the time it took to read one, there was just no way to keep up with them. This has still not gotten much over 50.
It is interesting, but few considers the new iPhone to be broken anymore. No matter what you think of how Jobs handled it, he completely defused a situation that was becoming very hostile. I'm sure this will be taught and dissected at universities for years just as Intels poor handling of PR with the "faulty" processors is taught as the difference between dealing with companies and customers. This was a lesson for all and many key bloggers have already written pieces of how he changed the usual dynamics of apologizing for any perceived issue.
It is interesting, but few considers the new iPhone to be broken anymore. No matter what you think of how Jobs handled it, he completely defused a situation that was becoming very hostile. I'm sure this will be taught and dissected at universities for years just as Intels poor handling of PR with the "faulty" processors is taught as the difference between dealing with companies and customers. This was a lesson for all and many key bloggers have already written pieces of how he changed the usual dynamics of apologizing for any perceived issue.
bdkennedy1
Mar 24, 03:37 PM
I remember my first iBook G3 came with OS X 10.1. The G3 was so underpowered to handle OS X it render most of the OS unusable. Screen redraw times were ridiculous.
But now it's more gooder.
But now it's more gooder.
more...
NAG
Jan 12, 07:43 PM
The issue here is that bloggers and online journalists are still a fairly new medium and haven't been fully accepted yet. This would happen with any sort of group that didn't have a history.
I would bet that no print media journalist would ever pull crap like this, either. He/she would have been fired on the spot and the publication itself would have issued a real apology, not post a video online and issue a half-hearted apology to one group.
Whoa. You honestly think that there isn't anyone in the print media that pulled stuff like that? You haven't read a lot of the more satirical magazines.
And by saying "haven't been fully accepted yet" you really mean "the big print media guys are still in their transition." They all know print is basically dead, they've been trying to transition for years. Some morons with a blog turning off tvs at a tech conference are not going to stop this transition. If anything it will lead to conferences learning how to properly vet online media like they do with print media.
I would bet that no print media journalist would ever pull crap like this, either. He/she would have been fired on the spot and the publication itself would have issued a real apology, not post a video online and issue a half-hearted apology to one group.
Whoa. You honestly think that there isn't anyone in the print media that pulled stuff like that? You haven't read a lot of the more satirical magazines.
And by saying "haven't been fully accepted yet" you really mean "the big print media guys are still in their transition." They all know print is basically dead, they've been trying to transition for years. Some morons with a blog turning off tvs at a tech conference are not going to stop this transition. If anything it will lead to conferences learning how to properly vet online media like they do with print media.
superfula
Apr 29, 06:54 PM
NT 4 and Windows 95/98 don't use the same kernel at all. They might share the GUI sub-system (actually, it's called the Win32 sub-system, which is probably what Windows Team blog is referring when referring to API versions, since Win32 is the Windows API) (and yes, I know the 64 bit version is called Win64, just like the 16 bit version was called Win16), but they do not share the same architecture/kernel at all, which Smitty inferred. So no, Smitty wasn't right at all, is use of the word kernel was wrong and confusing.
Read my post. I didn't say he was right about them being the same kernal. I simply said he was right about the naming conventions.
The version in question isn't simply the gui version number, but the code base version as a whole.
Anyway, the only way it makes sense again is Windows NT releases. I doubt the Windows Team Blog are in on marketing meetings. ;)
The only way it makes sense is by using the actual version numbers that MS gave us, which are quite easily found. ;) Not only in Windows but in several sources through the net. I'll believe the info MS gives us vs someone from macrumors.
Read my post. I didn't say he was right about them being the same kernal. I simply said he was right about the naming conventions.
The version in question isn't simply the gui version number, but the code base version as a whole.
Anyway, the only way it makes sense again is Windows NT releases. I doubt the Windows Team Blog are in on marketing meetings. ;)
The only way it makes sense is by using the actual version numbers that MS gave us, which are quite easily found. ;) Not only in Windows but in several sources through the net. I'll believe the info MS gives us vs someone from macrumors.
more...
dyrer
Apr 29, 07:01 PM
Hello
I just bought a 15" MBP
I have to pay for new Lion? to upgrade
I just bought a 15" MBP
I have to pay for new Lion? to upgrade
mdntcallr
Oct 18, 03:24 PM
Please, this conversation is so 2005...
Optware also plans to release a holographic disk product for streaming video that's targeted at the film and broadcast industries, and a consumer disk product that is about the size of a credit card with 30GB of capacity.
hah, so funny, but then again, it has taken alot of time to make blu-ray hope this could come faster.
but.... it all depends on pricing. will holographic storage be cheaper? more reliable.
if so... sign me up. alot of us just want reliable storage.
but... with turner movies using it. sounds like a professional tier product, not consumer yet
Optware also plans to release a holographic disk product for streaming video that's targeted at the film and broadcast industries, and a consumer disk product that is about the size of a credit card with 30GB of capacity.
hah, so funny, but then again, it has taken alot of time to make blu-ray hope this could come faster.
but.... it all depends on pricing. will holographic storage be cheaper? more reliable.
if so... sign me up. alot of us just want reliable storage.
but... with turner movies using it. sounds like a professional tier product, not consumer yet
more...
Littleodie914
Mar 28, 02:35 PM
Yes what a heinous crime for Apple to want to promote their new distribution platform and encourage developers to take advantage of it.No kidding. It's like Columbia Records giving out awards to its most innovative musicians, and all the musicians from Sony Music start complaining that they aren't eligible to receive one. :confused:
It's not anyone's "right" to be in the running for any awards. Sheesh.
It's not anyone's "right" to be in the running for any awards. Sheesh.
RobertD63
Apr 27, 05:54 PM
So it's like Reddit now. Cooleo
Edit: To fix the boxes around the images in IE just use a little CSS
tagName img{
border: none;
}
That should solve your woes there. IE likes to default the CSS border on images to visitable.
Edit: To fix the boxes around the images in IE just use a little CSS
tagName img{
border: none;
}
That should solve your woes there. IE likes to default the CSS border on images to visitable.
more...
UTclassof89
Jul 21, 12:07 PM
Umm, that's still less than 1%. That's pretty good. That would be out of 100 million calls. 99 million calls were fine.
You seem to have missed the "... MORE than iPhone 3gs" part.
A better antenna should drop FEWER calls (unless there's a flaw)
You seem to have missed the "... MORE than iPhone 3gs" part.
A better antenna should drop FEWER calls (unless there's a flaw)
theosib
Apr 29, 08:17 PM
I like it as it is in Snow Leopard.
Yes! I completely agree! What's wrong with Aqua candy blue style? It looks great and is intuitive. This gray-only stuff seems like a step backwards.
Yes! I completely agree! What's wrong with Aqua candy blue style? It looks great and is intuitive. This gray-only stuff seems like a step backwards.
more...
peharri
Oct 31, 09:34 AM
The thin veneer is off the vast majority of people that clamor for OSS.
Whenever I hear the OSS crowd scream "Software should be FREE!" I translate that to mean "I refuse to pay someone for their work, thus I will STEAL it"!
I don't blame Apple. The OSS community abused what they had and turned to piracy by stealing the GUI. Kudos Apple.
What on Earth are you talking about? What are people stealing in the Arn's summary? The modified code isn't capable of running OS X, and until they closed the source, Darwin worked on most generic x86 platforms anyway.
Someone fixes a lack of functionality that existed in previous public versions and you call it "stealing"? WTF?
Whenever I hear the OSS crowd scream "Software should be FREE!" I translate that to mean "I refuse to pay someone for their work, thus I will STEAL it"!
I don't blame Apple. The OSS community abused what they had and turned to piracy by stealing the GUI. Kudos Apple.
What on Earth are you talking about? What are people stealing in the Arn's summary? The modified code isn't capable of running OS X, and until they closed the source, Darwin worked on most generic x86 platforms anyway.
Someone fixes a lack of functionality that existed in previous public versions and you call it "stealing"? WTF?
tsadi
May 3, 09:30 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
Anyone know what's the app being used in the "to a CEO" part?
Anyone know what's the app being used in the "to a CEO" part?
clintob
Oct 19, 10:06 AM
I'm not entirely sure how I feel about Apple's market share increasing.
On the one hand, it's great in that it sort of validates the fact that the machines are better, or at least "cooler" and more fun, than PCs. But on the other hand, it's just the nature of production that the more units you're responsible for creating, the more room there is for error, rush-jobs, and cutting corners.
Apple is, I think everyone here agrees, far superior to PC manufacturers when it comes to quality control (the recent MB problems aside - I give a pass on that since it's really their first ever foray into the Intel-based notebook world which is a different animal altogether). Generally, Apple uses better, more reliable parts, a better overal setup and architecture, and the end result is a faster and more robust machine.
If they can somehow keep those high standards while continuing to grow in the world market I'm all for it. If not, I'm fine with being in that 6-10% range and enjoying my superior machine.
On the one hand, it's great in that it sort of validates the fact that the machines are better, or at least "cooler" and more fun, than PCs. But on the other hand, it's just the nature of production that the more units you're responsible for creating, the more room there is for error, rush-jobs, and cutting corners.
Apple is, I think everyone here agrees, far superior to PC manufacturers when it comes to quality control (the recent MB problems aside - I give a pass on that since it's really their first ever foray into the Intel-based notebook world which is a different animal altogether). Generally, Apple uses better, more reliable parts, a better overal setup and architecture, and the end result is a faster and more robust machine.
If they can somehow keep those high standards while continuing to grow in the world market I'm all for it. If not, I'm fine with being in that 6-10% range and enjoying my superior machine.
balamw
Apr 12, 09:18 AM
Oh... hang on. That sounds awfully familiar. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Works)
They killed Works for Office Starter precisely for this reason. You get basic, ad-supported, functionality with the PC but are actively encouraged to "activate" to a real version of Office. This incentive wasn't there with Works as a separate suite.
EDIT: Apple may be king of the upsell on the hardware front, but Micorosoft is great at in in software.
B
They killed Works for Office Starter precisely for this reason. You get basic, ad-supported, functionality with the PC but are actively encouraged to "activate" to a real version of Office. This incentive wasn't there with Works as a separate suite.
EDIT: Apple may be king of the upsell on the hardware front, but Micorosoft is great at in in software.
B
stealthman1
Nov 24, 09:12 AM
20% off on the Shure E500PTH was too much to take. I bit.:D
Starship77
Apr 15, 03:34 PM
Actually, shooting up close with a wide-angle lens will give you exactly that distortion. Here is a photo I just took of a REAL iPhone with a 17mm lens. Sorry about the fuzziness - handheld and did not use a flash:
http://www.marulla.com/files/perspective.jpg
So I don't think text in the 3rd photo is skewed. That being said, I agree it's a fake.
What gives the bad impression is that, since is a 3D rendering, it doesn't have lens distortion (because the guy "forgot" about it). Real lenses always gives you some barrel distortion because they are curved, and the standard camera in a 3D software is always just straight 3 point perspective. When you put it in an angle that gives too much perspective it looks strange.
Specially the first image, is a good 3D, but is not realistic enough to be perceived as a photo because of:
1- Lack of lens distortion
2- Very linear noise, obviously applied.
3- Un-natural light
4- Not so realistic dynamic range and exposure
5- Shadows are too smooth for that kind of flash-light
6- Light is too uniform
7- The model is good, but you can see that there are some hard edges that are not natural.
8- Doesn't have any camera meta-data. (he "forgot" to fake that also)
and a few other minor things... but yeah, it's a very good 3D work!:)
if you want to do a little test with your abilities to tell if it's cg or not:
http://area.autodesk.com/fakeorfoto/challenge
a little too easy though... ;)
http://www.marulla.com/files/perspective.jpg
So I don't think text in the 3rd photo is skewed. That being said, I agree it's a fake.
What gives the bad impression is that, since is a 3D rendering, it doesn't have lens distortion (because the guy "forgot" about it). Real lenses always gives you some barrel distortion because they are curved, and the standard camera in a 3D software is always just straight 3 point perspective. When you put it in an angle that gives too much perspective it looks strange.
Specially the first image, is a good 3D, but is not realistic enough to be perceived as a photo because of:
1- Lack of lens distortion
2- Very linear noise, obviously applied.
3- Un-natural light
4- Not so realistic dynamic range and exposure
5- Shadows are too smooth for that kind of flash-light
6- Light is too uniform
7- The model is good, but you can see that there are some hard edges that are not natural.
8- Doesn't have any camera meta-data. (he "forgot" to fake that also)
and a few other minor things... but yeah, it's a very good 3D work!:)
if you want to do a little test with your abilities to tell if it's cg or not:
http://area.autodesk.com/fakeorfoto/challenge
a little too easy though... ;)
jayeskreezy
Apr 3, 10:32 PM
great detective work...too bad about your xbox360 though....good that they didnt take anything else...well, hopefully you're able to be compensated...did you have renters insurance?
arkitect
Apr 6, 05:11 AM
iAd Gallery is a free download.
Would not surprise me if Apple Inc. thought about charging for it…
Who wants to go out of their way to see ads? What's this world coming to?
Absolutely.
Luckily technology has enabled me to now have a virtually ad free web/television/film viewing "experience".
Apple think differently, of course. :)
Would not surprise me if Apple Inc. thought about charging for it…
Who wants to go out of their way to see ads? What's this world coming to?
Absolutely.
Luckily technology has enabled me to now have a virtually ad free web/television/film viewing "experience".
Apple think differently, of course. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment