rtdunham
Mar 23, 06:10 PM
... Honestly, do you think someone who is Drunk is going to be checking the app for the checkpoints? Its just an excuse to get rid of these apps from the store and increase revenue (by ticketing more DUI drivers)....
Your argument's inconsistent: If drunk drivers won't be checking the app, then they'd be ticketed at the checkpoint whether or not the apps exist, so pulling the apps neither increases or decreases revenue, does it? Your argument (revenue generation) ONLY works if it increases the number of drivers ticketed because those drivers use the apps.
Now, IF some drivers do check the app, it increases the likelihood they can avoid the checkpoint and being taken off the road. Remember, most drunks don't think they are. So they might use the app to avoid what they think is an unfair stop. But if the stop shows they are over the particular state's alcohol content level, then the system's sorted them out and done a favor for the rest of us, no?
Your argument's inconsistent: If drunk drivers won't be checking the app, then they'd be ticketed at the checkpoint whether or not the apps exist, so pulling the apps neither increases or decreases revenue, does it? Your argument (revenue generation) ONLY works if it increases the number of drivers ticketed because those drivers use the apps.
Now, IF some drivers do check the app, it increases the likelihood they can avoid the checkpoint and being taken off the road. Remember, most drunks don't think they are. So they might use the app to avoid what they think is an unfair stop. But if the stop shows they are over the particular state's alcohol content level, then the system's sorted them out and done a favor for the rest of us, no?
iStudentUK
Mar 29, 11:45 AM
I think they need to learn how to do math. How can you have an 18.8% cumulative annual growth rate when your market share goes down from 15.7% to 15.3%?
More people buy smartphones. So Apple could sell more iPhones and have a lower market share.
Looks like they predict a 20% year on year growth for smartphones, which is quite high!
More people buy smartphones. So Apple could sell more iPhones and have a lower market share.
Looks like they predict a 20% year on year growth for smartphones, which is quite high!
iLilana
Apr 25, 02:03 PM
I'm slowly becoming a skeptic I think. It would be cool to see what they would come up with though.
macboy62
Sep 13, 11:04 PM
SoftBank are offering a new iPod nano free with the new Sharp 705SH phone...
http://www.vodafone.jp/special/index.html?cc_1001=
http://www.vodafone.jp/special/index.html?cc_1001=
Eidorian
Sep 9, 01:09 PM
The biggest advantage is that you get quad cores without having to pay for Xeon chipsets and memory.
It's also big for the Windows/Linux side of the world. Much of the software is licensed per socket.
- XP Home - 1 socket
- XP Pro - 2 sockets
- Win2k3 Server - 4 sockets
With a quad core, you can run an 8 CPU XP Pro system without forking over the bucks for Windows Server. Add to that per-socket licensing for many software packages, and it's a huge cost savings.
Careful here - it's almost as good as the current Mac Pro quad configuration. There you have two dies communicating over the FSB and Northbridge...Oh yeah, I forgot about the Windows socket limitations. I know it'll be a great performer but a "better" chip will always come out later. Kentsfield appears to be an Extreme Edition chip until quad core trickles down to more normal desktops. Still, I can see some new Mac Pro running off a single Kentsfield.
It's also big for the Windows/Linux side of the world. Much of the software is licensed per socket.
- XP Home - 1 socket
- XP Pro - 2 sockets
- Win2k3 Server - 4 sockets
With a quad core, you can run an 8 CPU XP Pro system without forking over the bucks for Windows Server. Add to that per-socket licensing for many software packages, and it's a huge cost savings.
Careful here - it's almost as good as the current Mac Pro quad configuration. There you have two dies communicating over the FSB and Northbridge...Oh yeah, I forgot about the Windows socket limitations. I know it'll be a great performer but a "better" chip will always come out later. Kentsfield appears to be an Extreme Edition chip until quad core trickles down to more normal desktops. Still, I can see some new Mac Pro running off a single Kentsfield.
mrzeigler
Mar 22, 07:19 PM
Good, my iMac G4 began to act its age � but really only with PS3 � a couple of months ago. I plan to again max out the processor, memory and harddrive upgrades and get another 7.5 years out of this next one.
vega07
Aug 28, 03:49 PM
The new MBPs will be announced on 6th with the free 2-3 day shipping, so MBPs would arrive sooner than the PCs inspite of announcing a week later!
where'd you get that info...or is that your wishful thinking out loud?:rolleyes:
where'd you get that info...or is that your wishful thinking out loud?:rolleyes:
Macginger
Mar 22, 01:33 PM
Yep this is what I've been patiently saving and waiting for, think I've now actually saved enough to buy a car with the change :cool:
Bobthemonkey
Sep 14, 05:13 PM
1.Aperture 2.0
2.MacBook Pro w/ Intel Merom
with three being some form of extenal storage device
im thinking apple branded eSATA HDD enclosures and/or esternal blu-ray burners
that would fit with the photokina site listing if apple german is the same as apple
http://208.106.154.143/index_suche.cfm?CFID=329&CFTOKEN=81545451&search=erg&oldsearch=0&MesseID=0240&Sprache=3&Jahr=2006&view=photokina&useCSS=&austeller=2470898&U_searchstring=apple&U_formname=AusstellerSuche&U_maxdisplay=10
http://208.106.154.143/index_suche.cfm?CFID=329&CFTOKEN=81545451&search=erg&oldsearch=0&MesseID=0240&Sprache=3&Jahr=2006&view=photokina&useCSS=&austeller=2522244&U_searchstring=apple&U_formname=AusstellerSuche&U_maxdisplay=10
2.MacBook Pro w/ Intel Merom
with three being some form of extenal storage device
im thinking apple branded eSATA HDD enclosures and/or esternal blu-ray burners
that would fit with the photokina site listing if apple german is the same as apple
http://208.106.154.143/index_suche.cfm?CFID=329&CFTOKEN=81545451&search=erg&oldsearch=0&MesseID=0240&Sprache=3&Jahr=2006&view=photokina&useCSS=&austeller=2470898&U_searchstring=apple&U_formname=AusstellerSuche&U_maxdisplay=10
http://208.106.154.143/index_suche.cfm?CFID=329&CFTOKEN=81545451&search=erg&oldsearch=0&MesseID=0240&Sprache=3&Jahr=2006&view=photokina&useCSS=&austeller=2522244&U_searchstring=apple&U_formname=AusstellerSuche&U_maxdisplay=10
stol
Apr 11, 09:36 AM
Ever heard of Home Sharing?
Well, thank you, I've heard of Home Sharing. I use it myself on my desktop and laptop. I was referring to an one-click streaming solution like Airtunes. More like "click there to stream music to my mac which is connected to my sound system" than "go to preferences, enable sharing; now wait while I browse your shared library".
So, Airport Expresses are luxury but other WiFi routers onto which an Airplay hack could be installed are not luxury?
You can rightfully slam Apple for not including Airplay into the Time Capsule and Airport Extreme but that is about it.
I think you got it completely wrong here. How is my WiFi router which was given to me for free by my internet provider a luxury? Who talked about hacking my router? How could possibly a common router provide me with audio output?
And of course Apple is getting greedy by not adding Airtunes to other wireless solutions they sell. One more reason to skip them altogether and go for a hack or other software solution. Once again, don't get me wrong, I love Apple and their products, I but there are some use cases where they just don't care or have completely other interests.
To stream between computers, you only need iTunes and Home Sharing, which is, btw, free. And you now welcome/wish for a third-party hack to stream music and then in the same breath say that installing even bonafide software like the free Airfoil Speakers or iTunes is out of the question. What is it, you could convince your friends to install a third-party hack on their computers but not iTunes or Airfoil?
Once again, my words are misinterpreted or you just don't understand.
I just wish to stream to my mac which is connected to my sound system from other Airtunes capable devices. That involves a hack only on my part and nothing at all to be done on other computers or iOS devices. Call me cheap, but that would be convenient to me and my friends.
And as I said before, I can see myself buying an Airport Express (although I would prefer the Airport Extreme, if it had an audio output) for a computer-less streaming setup, but for my current setup - which I think is the most common one - and budget I will opt for a tricky hack.
To sum up, all I want is a Banana-TV equivalent but just for audio. It looks like it's just a matter of time.
Well, thank you, I've heard of Home Sharing. I use it myself on my desktop and laptop. I was referring to an one-click streaming solution like Airtunes. More like "click there to stream music to my mac which is connected to my sound system" than "go to preferences, enable sharing; now wait while I browse your shared library".
So, Airport Expresses are luxury but other WiFi routers onto which an Airplay hack could be installed are not luxury?
You can rightfully slam Apple for not including Airplay into the Time Capsule and Airport Extreme but that is about it.
I think you got it completely wrong here. How is my WiFi router which was given to me for free by my internet provider a luxury? Who talked about hacking my router? How could possibly a common router provide me with audio output?
And of course Apple is getting greedy by not adding Airtunes to other wireless solutions they sell. One more reason to skip them altogether and go for a hack or other software solution. Once again, don't get me wrong, I love Apple and their products, I but there are some use cases where they just don't care or have completely other interests.
To stream between computers, you only need iTunes and Home Sharing, which is, btw, free. And you now welcome/wish for a third-party hack to stream music and then in the same breath say that installing even bonafide software like the free Airfoil Speakers or iTunes is out of the question. What is it, you could convince your friends to install a third-party hack on their computers but not iTunes or Airfoil?
Once again, my words are misinterpreted or you just don't understand.
I just wish to stream to my mac which is connected to my sound system from other Airtunes capable devices. That involves a hack only on my part and nothing at all to be done on other computers or iOS devices. Call me cheap, but that would be convenient to me and my friends.
And as I said before, I can see myself buying an Airport Express (although I would prefer the Airport Extreme, if it had an audio output) for a computer-less streaming setup, but for my current setup - which I think is the most common one - and budget I will opt for a tricky hack.
To sum up, all I want is a Banana-TV equivalent but just for audio. It looks like it's just a matter of time.
speakerwizard
Sep 9, 11:22 AM
Dont know if anyone will bother reading this far in but these new imac core2duos still have the same 667mhz bus speed as before, we wont see new bus speeds till nearly a year from now i hear, that sucks, this system could probably warp ahead with a better bus speed, i wanna upgrade from my g5 dual 2.7 (1.35ghz bus speed if i remember right) but im not sure how much diffference it would really make to me, and going mac to an imac from a powermac is a bit odd for me (im a 3d animator) there are pros and cons but im still tempted, main think holding me back is an intel maya, although i could always bootcamp windows and use that version!
logandzwon
Mar 30, 01:36 PM
Yes, you know what an "app store" means if you know what an "app" means.
Does an "app" mean an Apple program?
It's doesn't matter what MS calls it. There's a class of programs everywhere called "applications". There's no other name for it.
Applications are a strict subset of programs.
So, here is an interesting argument, as app is short for Applications, and Applications are a strict subset of programs, doesn't the App Store technically sell Programs, not Apps? Thus, the term is no generic at all. "Program Store" would the generic term. It's the same as a club called "Liqueur Store" (which is TMed.)
Does an "app" mean an Apple program?
It's doesn't matter what MS calls it. There's a class of programs everywhere called "applications". There's no other name for it.
Applications are a strict subset of programs.
So, here is an interesting argument, as app is short for Applications, and Applications are a strict subset of programs, doesn't the App Store technically sell Programs, not Apps? Thus, the term is no generic at all. "Program Store" would the generic term. It's the same as a club called "Liqueur Store" (which is TMed.)
janstett
Apr 11, 11:15 AM
This is great news, I've been waiting for something like that for ages.
For all those people that fail to see how it could be useful, consider the following scenarios:
I got my Mac connected to some great speakers.
Now, a friend comes by for a visit, brings along his laptop and we want to hear some music from his iTunes --> messy cables, my friend standing with his laptop by the amplifier because that cable is short (�)
Another friend comes over. We want to listen to music from his/her iPod/iPhone/iPad --> messy cables.
My beloved speakers are self-amplified and connected directly to my mac or say, an external sound card --> even more complicated!
Same friends, different room - let's say a living room with a HTPC --> More cables.
All this could be accomplished with a few airport express units across the house which is somehow a luxury option money-wise and somehow redundant since I already have a wireless router and at least one computer up and running. Also, it would probably create more of a mess with the aforementioned setup (I would need a multiple input amplifier for my living room or an extra mixer for self-amplified speakers). Don't get me wrong, I think AX is a great device and I'll probably get one someday, but it sounds absurd that one device cannot stream audio to a computer.
And for those suggesting third-party software, this sounds great if I were the only using them. I cannot imagine telling my friends "hey, buy this $40 software so we can stream music to each other's computer". I'm not sure I could even convince them to install free software to mess with their audio setup. iOS users are ruled out of course.
For those suggesting iTunes home sharing: this is for personal use. I don't want to share my id/pass with anyone, and no one wants to share it with me.
I have an example, too.
I do have Airport Expresses and ATV2s around my house and often use it to play music throughout the house, especially during holidays and parties.
Problem is in my den, I have several computers and a good 5.1 surround system, but no Airport Express. It sure would be nice to pipe sound into there too.
For all those people that fail to see how it could be useful, consider the following scenarios:
I got my Mac connected to some great speakers.
Now, a friend comes by for a visit, brings along his laptop and we want to hear some music from his iTunes --> messy cables, my friend standing with his laptop by the amplifier because that cable is short (�)
Another friend comes over. We want to listen to music from his/her iPod/iPhone/iPad --> messy cables.
My beloved speakers are self-amplified and connected directly to my mac or say, an external sound card --> even more complicated!
Same friends, different room - let's say a living room with a HTPC --> More cables.
All this could be accomplished with a few airport express units across the house which is somehow a luxury option money-wise and somehow redundant since I already have a wireless router and at least one computer up and running. Also, it would probably create more of a mess with the aforementioned setup (I would need a multiple input amplifier for my living room or an extra mixer for self-amplified speakers). Don't get me wrong, I think AX is a great device and I'll probably get one someday, but it sounds absurd that one device cannot stream audio to a computer.
And for those suggesting third-party software, this sounds great if I were the only using them. I cannot imagine telling my friends "hey, buy this $40 software so we can stream music to each other's computer". I'm not sure I could even convince them to install free software to mess with their audio setup. iOS users are ruled out of course.
For those suggesting iTunes home sharing: this is for personal use. I don't want to share my id/pass with anyone, and no one wants to share it with me.
I have an example, too.
I do have Airport Expresses and ATV2s around my house and often use it to play music throughout the house, especially during holidays and parties.
Problem is in my den, I have several computers and a good 5.1 surround system, but no Airport Express. It sure would be nice to pipe sound into there too.
Amazing Iceman
Mar 30, 11:55 AM
I'm thinkin' Apple should have gone with "iApp Store" (u heard it here FIRST! Let me get a trademark/patent on that) b/c Microsoft is just a big ole' COPYCAT...lol :D
It's not easy to pronounce "iApp Store". It wouldn't have worked out too well.
Apple should have patented "AppStore" as one word instead of two words "App Store". Or should have patented both to be safe.
Anyways, phonetically both sound the same, and that may be a good argument; it worked for Microsoft when they sued "Lindows".
It's not easy to pronounce "iApp Store". It wouldn't have worked out too well.
Apple should have patented "AppStore" as one word instead of two words "App Store". Or should have patented both to be safe.
Anyways, phonetically both sound the same, and that may be a good argument; it worked for Microsoft when they sued "Lindows".
dime21
Mar 23, 06:14 PM
The true irony here is your blatant assumption that is based on nothing more than a "gut feeling".
ok... so will you answer my question then please?
ok... so will you answer my question then please?
prady16
Sep 15, 10:01 PM
I was just watching the Bill Gates interview on 'The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch' on CNBC and when asked by Donny "What do you carry in your wallet and whats on your ipod?", he replied:
"I don't carry an ipod. I think carrying music on my mobile phone is much better. Some people might be doing that in the future." (chuckles)
Indicating the iPhone or the rumored mobile phone capabilities in Zune?
"I don't carry an ipod. I think carrying music on my mobile phone is much better. Some people might be doing that in the future." (chuckles)
Indicating the iPhone or the rumored mobile phone capabilities in Zune?
asdf542
Apr 14, 01:44 PM
I was asking you what I thought would be an easy question for you to answer. I'll ask again, it will work with any USB device, do you think that is an incentive for drive vendors to invest in it? I'll wait.
Yeah, it is. USB 3.0 is not that big of a step up from USB 2.0 so those that really need the extra bandwidth will not bother with it and go straight to Thunderbolt. Simple as that. Leave your rinky dink Toys R Us low bandwidth peripherals to USB and leave the big boy peripherals to Thunderbolt.
And I've posted no strawman arguments. I didn't insult you either. It was an observation. Reading difficulty is a problem, sure, but it is a a challenge that many people face. I am hopeful that those with this limitation can better themselves perhaps by taking some courses. Dialog is always better with someone that understands and can follow the discussion.Sure you have, you've completely ignored my other post then changed the subject to reading comprehension to smokescreen the topic at hand. Oh and give me a break with your non-insult ********. You have been making jabs about short buses and taking comprehension classes over a Thunderbolt and USB discussion. If anything you are the one that needs to take some classes, maybe not on comprehension but I'm sure you get the idea.
To properly recap, I believe it could be a repeat of FW and it could end up being considered 'Mac only'. I know it is subtle that a claim it will be DOA (well, subtle like a baseball bat, I guess), but it shouldn't be this difficult for you to understand. You are really, truly, picking the wrong fight. I think we actually agree on a lot of points. I'd like it to succeed, but can see things that might be obstacles. You don't see those as obstacles or perhaps don't see them at all. But, really, stop arguing against things I never said.Actually let's do a real recap:
You agree with a claim that Thunderbolt will be Mac only
I respond with an article that simply states it won't be
You respond with the reason it won't take off as manufacturers will have to add it separately
Econgeek tells you it's a completely different scenario because they don't need a license through Apple
I tell you Intel will be supporting both
You then start with your strawman argument and ignore a portion of what I stated
You also follow that up with some insults
I respond with video proof of why Thunderbolt will be popular with many devices
You ignore then respond with more insults
Yeah, it is. USB 3.0 is not that big of a step up from USB 2.0 so those that really need the extra bandwidth will not bother with it and go straight to Thunderbolt. Simple as that. Leave your rinky dink Toys R Us low bandwidth peripherals to USB and leave the big boy peripherals to Thunderbolt.
And I've posted no strawman arguments. I didn't insult you either. It was an observation. Reading difficulty is a problem, sure, but it is a a challenge that many people face. I am hopeful that those with this limitation can better themselves perhaps by taking some courses. Dialog is always better with someone that understands and can follow the discussion.Sure you have, you've completely ignored my other post then changed the subject to reading comprehension to smokescreen the topic at hand. Oh and give me a break with your non-insult ********. You have been making jabs about short buses and taking comprehension classes over a Thunderbolt and USB discussion. If anything you are the one that needs to take some classes, maybe not on comprehension but I'm sure you get the idea.
To properly recap, I believe it could be a repeat of FW and it could end up being considered 'Mac only'. I know it is subtle that a claim it will be DOA (well, subtle like a baseball bat, I guess), but it shouldn't be this difficult for you to understand. You are really, truly, picking the wrong fight. I think we actually agree on a lot of points. I'd like it to succeed, but can see things that might be obstacles. You don't see those as obstacles or perhaps don't see them at all. But, really, stop arguing against things I never said.Actually let's do a real recap:
You agree with a claim that Thunderbolt will be Mac only
I respond with an article that simply states it won't be
You respond with the reason it won't take off as manufacturers will have to add it separately
Econgeek tells you it's a completely different scenario because they don't need a license through Apple
I tell you Intel will be supporting both
You then start with your strawman argument and ignore a portion of what I stated
You also follow that up with some insults
I respond with video proof of why Thunderbolt will be popular with many devices
You ignore then respond with more insults
Dorfdad
Mar 22, 01:28 PM
Great news as I have been riding out my 2007 iMac and was tempted to buy one a few weeks ago. Glad I waited and will be first in line for the new iMac's! Wonder what problems we will face though? As it seems all new launches have. Anyone want to buy a Mint 24" 2007 with a 500gb HD (Fall 2007) Ati radeon 2600 Pro?
Lightivity
Oct 5, 03:16 AM
Being 16x9 encoded is not the same thing as being anaporphically encoded.
Being 16x9 encoded just means that the video is meant to be viewed at a 16x9 ratio. Yes, the movies (that I have bought, anyway,) are 16x9. Specifically, Good Will Hunting is 640x344.
Anamorphically encoded refers to the act of 'stretching' 16x9 source to the height of 4x3; so that you effectively get 33% more 'vertical' data than horizontal. The TV is then supposed to 'squish' the video back to 16x9. So, for example, if you tell your DVD player that you have a '16x9 anamorphic' TV, it will output the widescreen video to fill the entire 720x480 resolution. If you tell it you have a '16x9 non-anamorphic', it will still be outputting 720x480, but will add black bars on the top and bottom, to achive a 'video' resolution of 720x405.
My TV, for example, has a special '16x9 anamorphic' mode where it actually re-aims its electron beam so that it's only drawing in the 16x9 area, but at a higher vertical density than it normally would. Meaning that I no longer have square pixels. Instead, I have pixels that are 1.33 times wider than tall. (More data packed in height-wise.)
If iTunes movies were sold as anamorphic, then Good Will Hunting would be 640x372, and rely on the TV to 'squish' the 372 high into the height that 344 should be. Thereby displaying more vertical information in the same space.
I know exactly what 'anamorphic' means, and it was precisely what I meant when saying "16x9-encoded", with the exception that 'anamorphic' is a totally confusing and natively incorrect term.
Why? Because nothing is ever stretched or squashed in digital video. The anamorphic concept has unfortunately been transfered from the celluloid world where light truly is pressed together on a 35-mm film frame only to be expanded in the theater. Now, maybe I should have added the word "enhanced for widescreen" after "16x9-encoded" but it doesn't matter: All 16x9-videomaterial is encoded so that all 720x480 pixels carry the approximate dimension of 16x9 with the aim of fitting a television that holds a display with 1.78:1 proportions. That is the very definition of 16x9. It is not anamorphical. It is not sqeezed. It is just 16x9 pixels spread across a compatible display.
Ehurtley, what I think you thought I meant, was aspect ratio. But that is something completely else. The aspect ratio is the proportions of the frame the director intended the action to be shown in, and there are several. One is 2.35:1, but the most common is 1.85:1, which most closely resembles the 1.78:1 frame that 16x9-encoded video fits right into. The only ones using the 1:78:1 aspect ratio is tv-productions. Film productions rarely use it (they stick to conventional 2.35:1 and 1.85:1).
Don't confuse the 1.78:1 aspect ratio which -- together with 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 -- is the artistic concept of framing action, with 16x9-encoding which is the technical solution of using a standard pixel resolution in a widescreen setup.
So, my question remains: is there any 16x9-encoded film content on iTunes Store?
Being 16x9 encoded just means that the video is meant to be viewed at a 16x9 ratio. Yes, the movies (that I have bought, anyway,) are 16x9. Specifically, Good Will Hunting is 640x344.
Anamorphically encoded refers to the act of 'stretching' 16x9 source to the height of 4x3; so that you effectively get 33% more 'vertical' data than horizontal. The TV is then supposed to 'squish' the video back to 16x9. So, for example, if you tell your DVD player that you have a '16x9 anamorphic' TV, it will output the widescreen video to fill the entire 720x480 resolution. If you tell it you have a '16x9 non-anamorphic', it will still be outputting 720x480, but will add black bars on the top and bottom, to achive a 'video' resolution of 720x405.
My TV, for example, has a special '16x9 anamorphic' mode where it actually re-aims its electron beam so that it's only drawing in the 16x9 area, but at a higher vertical density than it normally would. Meaning that I no longer have square pixels. Instead, I have pixels that are 1.33 times wider than tall. (More data packed in height-wise.)
If iTunes movies were sold as anamorphic, then Good Will Hunting would be 640x372, and rely on the TV to 'squish' the 372 high into the height that 344 should be. Thereby displaying more vertical information in the same space.
I know exactly what 'anamorphic' means, and it was precisely what I meant when saying "16x9-encoded", with the exception that 'anamorphic' is a totally confusing and natively incorrect term.
Why? Because nothing is ever stretched or squashed in digital video. The anamorphic concept has unfortunately been transfered from the celluloid world where light truly is pressed together on a 35-mm film frame only to be expanded in the theater. Now, maybe I should have added the word "enhanced for widescreen" after "16x9-encoded" but it doesn't matter: All 16x9-videomaterial is encoded so that all 720x480 pixels carry the approximate dimension of 16x9 with the aim of fitting a television that holds a display with 1.78:1 proportions. That is the very definition of 16x9. It is not anamorphical. It is not sqeezed. It is just 16x9 pixels spread across a compatible display.
Ehurtley, what I think you thought I meant, was aspect ratio. But that is something completely else. The aspect ratio is the proportions of the frame the director intended the action to be shown in, and there are several. One is 2.35:1, but the most common is 1.85:1, which most closely resembles the 1.78:1 frame that 16x9-encoded video fits right into. The only ones using the 1:78:1 aspect ratio is tv-productions. Film productions rarely use it (they stick to conventional 2.35:1 and 1.85:1).
Don't confuse the 1.78:1 aspect ratio which -- together with 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 -- is the artistic concept of framing action, with 16x9-encoding which is the technical solution of using a standard pixel resolution in a widescreen setup.
So, my question remains: is there any 16x9-encoded film content on iTunes Store?
chasemac
Aug 24, 01:46 AM
Whenever did something like this happen?! :confused: ;)
Oh My!!:)
Oh My!!:)
aiqw9182
Apr 25, 02:43 PM
For those wanting retina displays:
No modern GPU can display anything past 2560x1600 on a single screen.
No modern GPU can display anything past 2560x1600 on a single screen.
fastlane1588
Aug 29, 08:36 AM
great, nothing....
Surely
Apr 20, 10:08 AM
It *is* private now. This information isn't broadcast anywhere but your own personal computer in the form of an encrypted backup file. The information won't go anywhere but with you and your property.
However, if your iphone gets stolen, the GPS log is likely the least private thing you need to worry about. The thief will have access to your entire contact list, browsing history, etc..
The backup file isn't encrypted unless you select that option.
This database of your locations is stored on your iPhone as well as in any of the automatic backups that are made when you sync it with iTunes. One thing that will help is choosing encrypted backups, since that will prevent other users or programs on your machine from viewing the data, but there will still be a copy on your device.
from: http://petewarden.github.com/iPhoneTracker/
The data is actually collected by cell tower triangulation, not GPS.
The data appears to come from cell tower triangulation, rather than the GPS chip from: http://www.tuaw.com/2011/04/20/your-iphone-is-silently-and-constantly-logging-your-location/
However, if your iphone gets stolen, the GPS log is likely the least private thing you need to worry about. The thief will have access to your entire contact list, browsing history, etc..
The backup file isn't encrypted unless you select that option.
This database of your locations is stored on your iPhone as well as in any of the automatic backups that are made when you sync it with iTunes. One thing that will help is choosing encrypted backups, since that will prevent other users or programs on your machine from viewing the data, but there will still be a copy on your device.
from: http://petewarden.github.com/iPhoneTracker/
The data is actually collected by cell tower triangulation, not GPS.
The data appears to come from cell tower triangulation, rather than the GPS chip from: http://www.tuaw.com/2011/04/20/your-iphone-is-silently-and-constantly-logging-your-location/
Frosticus
May 1, 02:30 AM
Finally, I can get my shiny new iMac! woop! :D
No comments:
Post a Comment