gelinasbrian
Oct 17, 03:39 PM
In the process of moving so my setup is located squarely on my coffee table. Will post new pic once I am moved into my new place and set up the office.
Not shown in photo is the mountain of boxes just to the left.:D
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/gelinasbrian/Brians_iMac.jpg
Not shown in photo is the mountain of boxes just to the left.:D
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/gelinasbrian/Brians_iMac.jpg
epb87
Mar 2, 09:44 AM
Today's mythical creature isn't really mythical. The Gigantopithecus is an ancient form of the ape. There is speculation that it still exists and is the reason for yeti and Big Foot sightings. I guess that is the reason for including it in a mythical creatures display.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5140/5484933159_0f8ca13877_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22077805@N07/5484933159/)
This mythical creature is Rangda. Rangda is the demon queen of the leyaks in Bali, according to traditional Balinese mythology. The leyak is a mythological figure in the form of flying head with entrails (heart, lung, liver, etc.) still attached. It is said to fly trying to find a pregnant woman in order to suck her baby's blood or a newborn child. Don't they sound friendly?
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5171/5485528774_59701cb011_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22077805@N07/5485528774/)
Loving the detail in these pictures and the others you have been posting from this museum trip. I assume it's a museum of some sort and that it was all in the same trip at least...
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5140/5484933159_0f8ca13877_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22077805@N07/5484933159/)
This mythical creature is Rangda. Rangda is the demon queen of the leyaks in Bali, according to traditional Balinese mythology. The leyak is a mythological figure in the form of flying head with entrails (heart, lung, liver, etc.) still attached. It is said to fly trying to find a pregnant woman in order to suck her baby's blood or a newborn child. Don't they sound friendly?
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5171/5485528774_59701cb011_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22077805@N07/5485528774/)
Loving the detail in these pictures and the others you have been posting from this museum trip. I assume it's a museum of some sort and that it was all in the same trip at least...
kdjc00
Apr 18, 01:51 PM
i just think how funny it is that ipad2 are being sold at a kids toy store... however if you think about it, apple is aiming for a younger crowd. Way of the future.. "start young"
MacFly123
Nov 3, 01:17 PM
Drinking from the Apple koolaid again, huh?
Perhaps if you pulled your head out of SJ's bum long enough to look around, you'd notice the vast majority of iPhone users are being punished in Apple's attempt to mold the internet in it's own image.
A large number of websites use flash in their design, and are completely inaccessible without flash support. Inefficient or not, that's fact, and we're the losers here.
Sorry, just stating facts. Flash is a horribly inferior technology and has crippled the web from a much greater potential. I honestly have not missed it at all on my iPhone and I block it with ClickToFlash on my Macs. I would GLADLY forgo Flash if Apple can kill it forever. Web developers need to use approved open standards and stop using Flash as a crutch. And if by Apple's own image, you mean far superior open standards that are approved by the W3C, then yes! :rolleyes:
Perhaps if you pulled your head out of SJ's bum long enough to look around, you'd notice the vast majority of iPhone users are being punished in Apple's attempt to mold the internet in it's own image.
A large number of websites use flash in their design, and are completely inaccessible without flash support. Inefficient or not, that's fact, and we're the losers here.
Sorry, just stating facts. Flash is a horribly inferior technology and has crippled the web from a much greater potential. I honestly have not missed it at all on my iPhone and I block it with ClickToFlash on my Macs. I would GLADLY forgo Flash if Apple can kill it forever. Web developers need to use approved open standards and stop using Flash as a crutch. And if by Apple's own image, you mean far superior open standards that are approved by the W3C, then yes! :rolleyes:
Chairman Plow
Mar 30, 01:41 PM
Are you the wife? :p
LMAO... too funny. :D
(Although, I should have known that this topic would be completely dissected and thoroughly overanalyzed.)
LMAO... too funny. :D
(Although, I should have known that this topic would be completely dissected and thoroughly overanalyzed.)
iPhelim
Jan 11, 04:59 PM
After reading this article (http://gizmodo.com/343246/what-to-expect-at-macworld-2008-and-why-we-think-it-will-bigger-than-usual) I think that it's entirely possible that Apple are altering their branding. Also the lack of an Apple logo could be explained by the fact that everyone at the expo would recognise it as them anyway and it adds to the air of secrecy and mystery that they love to use in their marketing.
oh yes, absolutely no sign of an Apple logo here....
oh yes, absolutely no sign of an Apple logo here....
Hisdem
Oct 26, 05:11 AM
Yep. That is the subwoofer for the Harman Kardon Soundsticks. :)
I thought you had a siren under your desk for a moment :p
I thought you had a siren under your desk for a moment :p
Humber
Mar 13, 06:07 AM
Ok, so here is what I think is happening. The release of MBP may happen before the iPad because Apple want to have customers buy both the iPad and the MBP. On the other hand, the release of a brand new product (iPad) is critical for them and they need to pull everything into it. That's why they choose not releasing MBP untill AFTER the iPad in fear of killing the interest of it.
So my conclusion is that it's either happening this tuesday or never...
and by never I mean many weeks after the iPad launch, far out in april :(
So my conclusion is that it's either happening this tuesday or never...
and by never I mean many weeks after the iPad launch, far out in april :(
baleensavage
Aug 29, 09:27 AM
Who?
www.macmall.com for starters.
www.macmall.com for starters.
mscriv
Apr 7, 07:07 PM
This is not true. There is no specific assertion in the Old Testament of any triune nature of god.
I could type up a bunch of stuff, but this website (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/triunity.html) does a good job of covering all the bases regarding our difference of opinion on this matter. Here's two quick excerpts:
Jews say that the Shema (pronounced Shmah), "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord"1 contradicts the Christian doctrine that Jesus is God. In addition, there are a number of other verses that proclaim that God is one (see God is One). However, the triunity of God is taught throughout the Old Testament, including the Shema! How can a statement of oneness imply plurality? The word translated "one" from the Hebrew is echad, which demonstrates compound unity of oneness.
and
Some of the verses above include all members of the triunity (Isaiah 42:1, Isaiah 48:16, and Isaiah 61:1). Therefore, the Old Testament does reveal the Christian concept of the Godhead, with God being one God, consisting of three persons.
Remember what I said in the beginning. Complete understanding of the old testament comes through knowledge gained by the revelation of the new testament. They really can't be separated in terms of understanding the whole of God's message and work throughout history. Additionally, for the average person (who cannot read Hebrew and is not familiar with Jewish history and doctrine) it could be difficult to see the trinity in the old testament. That's why I suggest to people that they invest in a study Bible, possibly a Bible Encyclopedia, and some commentaries. These additional tools can help bring out the contextual clues provided by the original languages, the historical context, and the skill of cross referencing within the Bible.
Of course not any interpretation is valid; however, the Bible is very complex and contradicts itself in places. There is no set interpretation that can said to be right, rather a spectrum that can be justified. "Clear" is not a word I would use.
Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree. The Bible does not contradict itself in it's overall message of God's revelation of himself and plan for restoring the relationship with man that was destroyed by sin. Sure there are differences of application and interpretation regarding secondary matters (food laws, sexuality, alcohol, etc. etc.) and that is why we have different denominations within the Christian faith. However, the primary matter of who God is, how he dealt with the problem of sin, and how he we are to treat one another is clear and without contradiction. That is why I feel confident in telling you that Westboro is "off the mark" because they are not following Christ's example with how they treat their fellow man and how they represent God to others.
I realize that, to you, what I'm about to say might be viewed as an issue of semantics or "word manipulation", but to a genuine follower of Christ there is no such thing as "my interpretation". I believe what God says in his word and if I am confused about something I look to other parts of scripture to help me get at the correct interpretation of what is confusing me. You see it doesn't matter what I think or what I wish it would say, I come to the Bible with no preconceived notions and let it stand on it's own.
This is obviously where we part ways. For me the Bible is the product of man. Nothing more.
I understand. In most, if not all, of these discussions the eventual impasse that arises is centered on the issue of faith. Some choose to believe, some don't. Some are open to putting God to the test, some are not.
I could type up a bunch of stuff, but this website (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/triunity.html) does a good job of covering all the bases regarding our difference of opinion on this matter. Here's two quick excerpts:
Jews say that the Shema (pronounced Shmah), "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord"1 contradicts the Christian doctrine that Jesus is God. In addition, there are a number of other verses that proclaim that God is one (see God is One). However, the triunity of God is taught throughout the Old Testament, including the Shema! How can a statement of oneness imply plurality? The word translated "one" from the Hebrew is echad, which demonstrates compound unity of oneness.
and
Some of the verses above include all members of the triunity (Isaiah 42:1, Isaiah 48:16, and Isaiah 61:1). Therefore, the Old Testament does reveal the Christian concept of the Godhead, with God being one God, consisting of three persons.
Remember what I said in the beginning. Complete understanding of the old testament comes through knowledge gained by the revelation of the new testament. They really can't be separated in terms of understanding the whole of God's message and work throughout history. Additionally, for the average person (who cannot read Hebrew and is not familiar with Jewish history and doctrine) it could be difficult to see the trinity in the old testament. That's why I suggest to people that they invest in a study Bible, possibly a Bible Encyclopedia, and some commentaries. These additional tools can help bring out the contextual clues provided by the original languages, the historical context, and the skill of cross referencing within the Bible.
Of course not any interpretation is valid; however, the Bible is very complex and contradicts itself in places. There is no set interpretation that can said to be right, rather a spectrum that can be justified. "Clear" is not a word I would use.
Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree. The Bible does not contradict itself in it's overall message of God's revelation of himself and plan for restoring the relationship with man that was destroyed by sin. Sure there are differences of application and interpretation regarding secondary matters (food laws, sexuality, alcohol, etc. etc.) and that is why we have different denominations within the Christian faith. However, the primary matter of who God is, how he dealt with the problem of sin, and how he we are to treat one another is clear and without contradiction. That is why I feel confident in telling you that Westboro is "off the mark" because they are not following Christ's example with how they treat their fellow man and how they represent God to others.
I realize that, to you, what I'm about to say might be viewed as an issue of semantics or "word manipulation", but to a genuine follower of Christ there is no such thing as "my interpretation". I believe what God says in his word and if I am confused about something I look to other parts of scripture to help me get at the correct interpretation of what is confusing me. You see it doesn't matter what I think or what I wish it would say, I come to the Bible with no preconceived notions and let it stand on it's own.
This is obviously where we part ways. For me the Bible is the product of man. Nothing more.
I understand. In most, if not all, of these discussions the eventual impasse that arises is centered on the issue of faith. Some choose to believe, some don't. Some are open to putting God to the test, some are not.
Gilbare
Jan 11, 02:57 PM
Anyone thought it could be a 3G upgrade for the iPhone being announced? Last time I checked 3G frequency = 'something in the air';)
Chundles
Nov 8, 09:53 AM
Just goes to show that what Apple says about how much faster stuff is a load of bull. How come the MBP is 39% faster and the MB only 25%. Theyre the same chips at the same speeds arent they?
What im trying to say is the MB should be 39% faster than the previous one right?
:confused:
No, the claim for the MBP is for 2.16GHz Core Duo v 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo so there is an increase in clock speed as well as the change in chip.
For the MB they don't get an increase in clock speed hence the lower claimed speed increase.
What im trying to say is the MB should be 39% faster than the previous one right?
:confused:
No, the claim for the MBP is for 2.16GHz Core Duo v 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo so there is an increase in clock speed as well as the change in chip.
For the MB they don't get an increase in clock speed hence the lower claimed speed increase.
NT1440
Mar 11, 12:06 AM
Just an example of a generic office budget ... the City of Toronto has 44 Councillors with an annual office budget of over $50,000 each (most of it used on "useless" crap)
Our new Mayor Rob Ford actually spends $0 every year of his office budget.
lets cut that in half to "reasonable"... all across the country in every city town and county.
Another example is that Mayor in Southern California making over $800,000 per year ... think he is the only one?
We need to weed out this "useless" waste and get back on track ... this kind of Government feeding at the trough is what is bankrupting our countries ... not the Military budgets.
I agree that abuse needs to stop, but the underlined is completely and utterly false. This kind of abuse is so miniscule in scale compared to the hundreds of billions we are talking about here. The term drop in the bucket is beyond inadequate here.
Your entire sense of scale is horribly off mark.
Again, I agree that no public official should EVER make as outrageous a sum as $800,000 (hell $100,000 is pushing it in my book) but to suggest that THAT is bankrupting the country and not the big ticket items (healthcare, Military, benefits), well I don't really have any words to describe this. :confused:
Our new Mayor Rob Ford actually spends $0 every year of his office budget.
lets cut that in half to "reasonable"... all across the country in every city town and county.
Another example is that Mayor in Southern California making over $800,000 per year ... think he is the only one?
We need to weed out this "useless" waste and get back on track ... this kind of Government feeding at the trough is what is bankrupting our countries ... not the Military budgets.
I agree that abuse needs to stop, but the underlined is completely and utterly false. This kind of abuse is so miniscule in scale compared to the hundreds of billions we are talking about here. The term drop in the bucket is beyond inadequate here.
Your entire sense of scale is horribly off mark.
Again, I agree that no public official should EVER make as outrageous a sum as $800,000 (hell $100,000 is pushing it in my book) but to suggest that THAT is bankrupting the country and not the big ticket items (healthcare, Military, benefits), well I don't really have any words to describe this. :confused:
sphereboy
Sep 12, 03:41 PM
Here are my thoughts ( if anyone cares ):
The left column icons are really bad.
The type headers are too big.
The spacing is horrendous.
Missing Equalizer button.
Missing Visualizer button.
Coverflow was cool as it was a stand alone app. But to just squeeze the exisitng app into itunes is just plain lazy. Doesn't seem like much thought went into that one.
Ipod updates are cool.
The Search is back to how it was. No more tabs up on top? Not searching for videos?
What if i want to collapse the Store section on the Left Column? I can't. Stupid UI.
To be honest, i think all this Apple attention is hurting their creativity. The buttons look like the first version of iTunes for the PC.
Hopefully this is that bad version, and they will correct it. I will be sending these comments to Apple Feedback as well.
Peace.
Update: Oh and i forgot!... the Dock Icon. FUGLY!
The left column icons are really bad.
The type headers are too big.
The spacing is horrendous.
Missing Equalizer button.
Missing Visualizer button.
Coverflow was cool as it was a stand alone app. But to just squeeze the exisitng app into itunes is just plain lazy. Doesn't seem like much thought went into that one.
Ipod updates are cool.
The Search is back to how it was. No more tabs up on top? Not searching for videos?
What if i want to collapse the Store section on the Left Column? I can't. Stupid UI.
To be honest, i think all this Apple attention is hurting their creativity. The buttons look like the first version of iTunes for the PC.
Hopefully this is that bad version, and they will correct it. I will be sending these comments to Apple Feedback as well.
Peace.
Update: Oh and i forgot!... the Dock Icon. FUGLY!
MrMuskOx
Mar 11, 08:03 PM
Update: 9 to 5 Mac now reports that the cited source may have been a hoax, although it notes that it has received multiple tips of a MacBook Pro release in the very near future.
:mad:
:mad:
hagjohn
Oct 26, 08:10 PM
I'm installed the updated but my temps have gone up.. from about 34C degrees to about 54C.
cutsman
Mar 2, 01:07 AM
http://cman.zenfolio.com/img/s3/v26/p822638810-4.jpg
arn
Mar 21, 03:24 PM
Sorry, but for me this story doesn't pass the sniff test.
Since it's a page 2 story, I think the editors think the same.
Great PR story if true...
I think it's actually true. It just seemed more casual/fluffy than our usual front page stories, which is why it got to page 2.
arn
Since it's a page 2 story, I think the editors think the same.
Great PR story if true...
I think it's actually true. It just seemed more casual/fluffy than our usual front page stories, which is why it got to page 2.
arn
paradillon
Sep 6, 09:13 AM
The "Digitally Amplified Speakers" makes me wonder about apples patent on surround sound technology for movie veiwing.
http://forums.macrumors.com/images/attach/jpg.gif
http://forums.macrumors.com/images/attach/jpg.gif
DavidLeblond
Nov 27, 10:44 AM
(where albums mostly play the same GD thing out of both channels)
They SOUND like they play the same thing, I can assure you they don't. Take one of those songs and listen to it in Mono and you'll be able to tell the difference most of the time.
They SOUND like they play the same thing, I can assure you they don't. Take one of those songs and listen to it in Mono and you'll be able to tell the difference most of the time.
ravenvii
May 4, 09:44 PM
iPad 3 - iPad 3D
I could really see that, with the iPhone 3G (it was actually the 3rd phone) and had 3G.
Nah, the iPhone 3G was the second iPhone. The iPhone 3GS was the third.
I could really see that, with the iPhone 3G (it was actually the 3rd phone) and had 3G.
Nah, the iPhone 3G was the second iPhone. The iPhone 3GS was the third.
iRobby
Apr 2, 12:38 AM
I can't wait to UPGRADE!!
Ubuntu
Sep 13, 04:12 PM
The new ones are ever so slightly thinner and have rounded edges like a mini. I put mine up against my partners 1st gen (in it's rather scratched case) so you could see.
I changed my mind on the packaging pic too. When the iPod's in there it's like a little glass coffin :)
57407 57408
57410
Nice pictures!
I love it. Personally, I prefer the previous nano box, but if this is helping the environment then I'm happy!
I changed my mind on the packaging pic too. When the iPod's in there it's like a little glass coffin :)
57407 57408
57410
Nice pictures!
I love it. Personally, I prefer the previous nano box, but if this is helping the environment then I'm happy!
Pallish
Sep 4, 07:50 AM
I just cancelled my MacBook+iPod-order... The folks at Apple couldn't say if the back to school-offer would still be valid if I switched iPods so I'm placing a new order on Tuesday so I can save 200 bucks on the iPod :)
0 comments:
Post a Comment