rprebel
Feb 18, 10:33 PM
Original PLEASE! :)
Here (http://4walled.org/show-74217) ya go
Here (http://4walled.org/show-74217) ya go
Iam-AT-Work
Apr 6, 02:13 PM
My first mac had 1.2 GB Hard drive. The Power Mac 7500
meh, my first HD was 52MB that .052GB or .000052TB or .000000052PB :D
meh, my first HD was 52MB that .052GB or .000052TB or .000000052PB :D
LethalWolfe
Nov 12, 03:08 PM
And when FCS4 comes out it will be a year ahead of CS5. What's your point?
I think his point was that if the next version of FCP is only playing 'catch up' to CS5 and MC5 it will quickly be eclipsed by the next iterations of those programs (especially if FCP stays on a two year product cycle). FCP needs to leap frog CS5 and MC5 to remain competitive.
We've been using Mac Pros as servers for years now... it has more function than the Xserve but is just not rack mountable. No big deal. And who used Shake that its loss makes an impact? Apple could cut Motion and I don't think many would care.
Just because it's not a big deal for you doesn't mean it's not a big deal for others. For example, our production technology guys are finally happy to be phasing out an old 30TB SAN that's taking up 3-4 times the space of the new 60TB SAN. Less space, less power, less cooling, less money to build and maintain for a bigger, better SAN. I can only imagine what they'd do if someone came in and said "Okay, we are replacing all your 1RU servers with Mac Pros".
As far as Shake goes, I'd say all the people doing higher end VFX work felt multiple stings from Apple. First was killing the Windows version. Second was keeping the price high for the Linux version while severely discounting the Mac version. Third was ceasing development of it in 2006 even though it was arguably best in class software. It's a testament to the guys at Nothing Real (the creators of Shake) that it was still viable for so many years after Apple killed it (copies of Shake on eBay still go for, or near, full retail price). AFAIK Nuke has come in to fill the void left by Shake.
Lethal
I think his point was that if the next version of FCP is only playing 'catch up' to CS5 and MC5 it will quickly be eclipsed by the next iterations of those programs (especially if FCP stays on a two year product cycle). FCP needs to leap frog CS5 and MC5 to remain competitive.
We've been using Mac Pros as servers for years now... it has more function than the Xserve but is just not rack mountable. No big deal. And who used Shake that its loss makes an impact? Apple could cut Motion and I don't think many would care.
Just because it's not a big deal for you doesn't mean it's not a big deal for others. For example, our production technology guys are finally happy to be phasing out an old 30TB SAN that's taking up 3-4 times the space of the new 60TB SAN. Less space, less power, less cooling, less money to build and maintain for a bigger, better SAN. I can only imagine what they'd do if someone came in and said "Okay, we are replacing all your 1RU servers with Mac Pros".
As far as Shake goes, I'd say all the people doing higher end VFX work felt multiple stings from Apple. First was killing the Windows version. Second was keeping the price high for the Linux version while severely discounting the Mac version. Third was ceasing development of it in 2006 even though it was arguably best in class software. It's a testament to the guys at Nothing Real (the creators of Shake) that it was still viable for so many years after Apple killed it (copies of Shake on eBay still go for, or near, full retail price). AFAIK Nuke has come in to fill the void left by Shake.
Lethal
Hisdem
Apr 14, 04:47 PM
I bet that I4 LTZ sells better than the V6 Fusion. V6's in mid-size sedans will become rare with CAFE. The new Malibu is supposed to be I4 only. The next-gen Fusion will also ditch the V6 from what I hear. Sonata already is I4 only.
Both the Sonata and the Malibu fail if compared to the Fusion, here at least. It is not about having a V6, but paying more for a same size car with same equipment but with 170hp as compared to 245, the latter wins. Plus the current Malibu is ugly as hell, let's face it. The new one might change those figures though. And if Hyundai sold the 200bhp Sonata here, I am sure it would be a win, even costing more than a V6 Azera, which is ridiculous.
Both the Sonata and the Malibu fail if compared to the Fusion, here at least. It is not about having a V6, but paying more for a same size car with same equipment but with 170hp as compared to 245, the latter wins. Plus the current Malibu is ugly as hell, let's face it. The new one might change those figures though. And if Hyundai sold the 200bhp Sonata here, I am sure it would be a win, even costing more than a V6 Azera, which is ridiculous.
more...
Jason S.
Nov 19, 12:28 PM
The fact that this is for "select" stores, makes me wonder if they are using this to get people in the store. People might visit to see if they have the iPads in stock, and end up leaving with other products. And even if they do have the iPad in stock at certain stores, the profits they receive from the others who were unable to find the iPad but still make a purchase will probably exceed their loss.
And I'm not talking about TJ Maxx trying to attract the people that would necessarily visit MacRumors. They are most likely trying to target 35-60 year old moms, grandmas, wives, etc. that don't know much about the iPad and would be interested in the other types of products TJ Maxx sells.
And I'm not talking about TJ Maxx trying to attract the people that would necessarily visit MacRumors. They are most likely trying to target 35-60 year old moms, grandmas, wives, etc. that don't know much about the iPad and would be interested in the other types of products TJ Maxx sells.
Corpus_Callosum
Nov 22, 08:50 PM
just to clear something up. This right now appears to be a text-based phone. I don't think Wu is talking about iChat AV functionality. Some other sites (of much, much less accuracy) have been claiming that the iPhone would be able to do videoconferencing and whatnot, but currently there isn't any good evidence to support this, and in my opinion it doesn't look like current 3G GSM cellular networks simply don't have the duplex bandwidth to deliver that kind of content. (and 4G is still a ways off)
Apple would not try to deliver iChatAV video conferencing services over 3G (or any other cellular network). It's a ridiculous idea. However, having iChatAV capability over WiFi is totally doable and completely within the realm of possibility. Apple would be retarded not to have a camera and WiFi on their new phone, mostly because it would represent a step backwards from current state of the art cellular phones.
So, what is the real issue? If they have WiFi capability and have a camera, all they need is the horsepower to encode and decode H.264 and iChatAV on the iPhone becomes a reality. While H.264 is a demanding codec, there already exists hardware encoders/decoders in the wild. This is the stopping point. If Apple includes silicon that can handle H.264, iPhone will do AV conferencing ala iChatAV. My own personal belief is that this one feature is the primary differentiator that Apple is going to leverage to gain traction in the mobile market. While everyone else is yakking and texting, iPhone users are holding their phones up to show their friends what they are seeing, watching iTunes movies and listening to iTunes music. A true lifestyle change as is the Apple way.
You can speculate all you want, but until you realize that Steve Jobs isn't going to enter a market that he can't shatter preconceived notions in, you aren't going to understand Apple's modus opperandi.
I also believe that this will be sold in Apple stores and not through carriers. There are two reasons for this:
(1) Apple will be selling a WiFi digital lifestyle device as the iPhone's primary role (e.g. if you are within range of usable WiFi, it will perform all functions through WiFi, including VOIP) and only use cellular networks as a fallback condition when WiFi is not available, crippling many features of the iPhone. Carriers are not going to be happy about this and would have no incentive to carry such a device as it represents a competitive threat. But don't let that alarm you, you should be able to slip any normal SIM card into the iPhone and make use of your existing carrier. Just don't expect to be subsidized - Apple doesn't tend to market to cheap consumers anyhow, they won't be worried about starting out with a non-subsidized and reasonably expensive phone. People will pay for this advancement and prices will go down over time.
(2) Apple will promote direct purchasing of video and audio content from iTunes using the device when on a WiFi network. This direct sales approach is also a threat to the carriers who want a piece of the action and demand much higher price/margins on digital content ($2 for a ringtone anyone?)
This all seems pretty obvious to me.
Apple would not try to deliver iChatAV video conferencing services over 3G (or any other cellular network). It's a ridiculous idea. However, having iChatAV capability over WiFi is totally doable and completely within the realm of possibility. Apple would be retarded not to have a camera and WiFi on their new phone, mostly because it would represent a step backwards from current state of the art cellular phones.
So, what is the real issue? If they have WiFi capability and have a camera, all they need is the horsepower to encode and decode H.264 and iChatAV on the iPhone becomes a reality. While H.264 is a demanding codec, there already exists hardware encoders/decoders in the wild. This is the stopping point. If Apple includes silicon that can handle H.264, iPhone will do AV conferencing ala iChatAV. My own personal belief is that this one feature is the primary differentiator that Apple is going to leverage to gain traction in the mobile market. While everyone else is yakking and texting, iPhone users are holding their phones up to show their friends what they are seeing, watching iTunes movies and listening to iTunes music. A true lifestyle change as is the Apple way.
You can speculate all you want, but until you realize that Steve Jobs isn't going to enter a market that he can't shatter preconceived notions in, you aren't going to understand Apple's modus opperandi.
I also believe that this will be sold in Apple stores and not through carriers. There are two reasons for this:
(1) Apple will be selling a WiFi digital lifestyle device as the iPhone's primary role (e.g. if you are within range of usable WiFi, it will perform all functions through WiFi, including VOIP) and only use cellular networks as a fallback condition when WiFi is not available, crippling many features of the iPhone. Carriers are not going to be happy about this and would have no incentive to carry such a device as it represents a competitive threat. But don't let that alarm you, you should be able to slip any normal SIM card into the iPhone and make use of your existing carrier. Just don't expect to be subsidized - Apple doesn't tend to market to cheap consumers anyhow, they won't be worried about starting out with a non-subsidized and reasonably expensive phone. People will pay for this advancement and prices will go down over time.
(2) Apple will promote direct purchasing of video and audio content from iTunes using the device when on a WiFi network. This direct sales approach is also a threat to the carriers who want a piece of the action and demand much higher price/margins on digital content ($2 for a ringtone anyone?)
This all seems pretty obvious to me.
more...
Hildron101010
Mar 23, 09:53 AM
Haha, the caption for the picture is wrong. It says he is demoing Lion, but he's really showing Snow Leopard.
rnelan7
Dec 25, 12:51 PM
My son got a "old school" kelly green DeSean Jackson jersey.:cool:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8pT6m8CJME
I also got tickets for Sunday night from my brother :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8pT6m8CJME
I also got tickets for Sunday night from my brother :D
more...
opinioncircle
Dec 13, 04:40 AM
Here is mine...
Seems like rockinthejoint beat me to the punch :)
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/3121/screenshot20101213at114.png (http://img171.imageshack.us/i/screenshot20101213at114.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Seems like rockinthejoint beat me to the punch :)
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/3121/screenshot20101213at114.png (http://img171.imageshack.us/i/screenshot20101213at114.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Taz Mangus
Apr 21, 08:20 PM
It depends on how you compare android to iOS. I personally get a full day out of my android phone. Thats with texting all day, one class where i am streaming peers papers the entire time. I am on wifi the entire time. I play Gameboy games for much of the day when i am on the bus. I listen to music when i am going around time on my long board. In all my phone is never in real sleep mode. When I first got the phone my battery life was about an two hours to two hours and a half, then I learned to shut off apps. I love the user interface more then apple. Yeah it lags occaisonally but i get to have all my lovely widgets where i can easily access them. I can see what my next apointment is just by unlocking my phone. I can read an email simply by swiping left. I can send, read a text message just by swiping right. I love it has every thing I need. If it doesn't work you it won't work but for over a million of us it works perfectly. iOS is not Android and Android is not iOS if it works for you it works for you no need to bash the other. I like iOS I just can't see my self using it as a phone OS.
The beauty of iOS is that it is more then just a phone OS. Flexible to run on Apple TVs, iPod Touches, iPhones and iPads. I also like the fact that Apple designed there application multi-tasking so that developers could decide how heavy they needed the multi-tasking to be. This gives the advantage to using the battery as efficiently as possible. I really do not like how difficult Google made it to kill off background tasks by burying the stop mechanism several levels under the setup.
Two and half hours of battery life is pretty bad and that is exactly what I am getting out the Andriod phones I use and work. I do not have that problem with the iPhone. I can do my work using the iPhone all day and not have to hook it to the charger or worry about killing off back ground tasks.
I can appreciate you not wanting to get into a bashing contest. You do come across a little on the "I am going to set these guys straight" attitude, though.
I will say this, I highly doubt that Android would have anywhere near the saturation that it does now if it were not for the BOGO phone deals that have been going on since Andriod came out. Apple is competing with LG, Google, Motorola, Samsung and HTC all of which are putting out several models of Andriod phones a month and doing the BOGO deals on most of them. I for one am glad Apple does not do that. For one thing BOGO hurts the resale value of the phones. Also, a lot of the manufactures modify the Andriod OS specific to the manufacturers needs. This creates the problem where you have to rely on the manufacturer for the update.
Apple makes it easy. You know when the refresh cycle happens and there is consistency to how the updates are done and it is controlled by one company. Google has created an inconsistent experience for the users. I can tell you first hand that not one of the various Andriod phones I use at work has a consistence interface from one another. I can easily pickup my wifes iPod touch or my iPad or the iPhones at work and they all have the same consistent feel and look to the interface.
The beauty of iOS is that it is more then just a phone OS. Flexible to run on Apple TVs, iPod Touches, iPhones and iPads. I also like the fact that Apple designed there application multi-tasking so that developers could decide how heavy they needed the multi-tasking to be. This gives the advantage to using the battery as efficiently as possible. I really do not like how difficult Google made it to kill off background tasks by burying the stop mechanism several levels under the setup.
Two and half hours of battery life is pretty bad and that is exactly what I am getting out the Andriod phones I use and work. I do not have that problem with the iPhone. I can do my work using the iPhone all day and not have to hook it to the charger or worry about killing off back ground tasks.
I can appreciate you not wanting to get into a bashing contest. You do come across a little on the "I am going to set these guys straight" attitude, though.
I will say this, I highly doubt that Android would have anywhere near the saturation that it does now if it were not for the BOGO phone deals that have been going on since Andriod came out. Apple is competing with LG, Google, Motorola, Samsung and HTC all of which are putting out several models of Andriod phones a month and doing the BOGO deals on most of them. I for one am glad Apple does not do that. For one thing BOGO hurts the resale value of the phones. Also, a lot of the manufactures modify the Andriod OS specific to the manufacturers needs. This creates the problem where you have to rely on the manufacturer for the update.
Apple makes it easy. You know when the refresh cycle happens and there is consistency to how the updates are done and it is controlled by one company. Google has created an inconsistent experience for the users. I can tell you first hand that not one of the various Andriod phones I use at work has a consistence interface from one another. I can easily pickup my wifes iPod touch or my iPad or the iPhones at work and they all have the same consistent feel and look to the interface.
more...
Lynxpro
Jul 27, 06:26 PM
Any 1080p television worth anything can easily deinterlace the 1080i signal from the Toshiba HD DVD player with zero image degradation. There simply is no difference. The 1080p vs. 1080i thing (for HD DVD and BD) is a myth.
First, I mentioned that the outputting problem is common with both formats the existing HD-DVD AND Blu-Ray decks currently on the market because the decoder chip is just not that great. That is why people are making a big deal about the upcoming Sigma Designs decoder chip that will come standard in both formats' second generation machines. Look it up.
And deinterlacing an input signal is not as good as the outputting device outputting in progressive scan in the first place. Do you want to argue that upscaling DVD players are just as good as the current HD formats while you are at it?
Sony has not stated any plan to use H.264 encoding. No studio has stated any plans for H.264 encoding either. It's either MPEG-2 vs. VC-1, and if you've watched anything on HD DVD, you'd know it's capable of amazing results. Compared to all available Blu-Ray discs, VC-1 beats MPEG-2. A better Blu-ray deck will not make the crappy MPEG-2 discs look better, because the problem is with the disc, not the player. Even when BD50 discs are viable (some day!), they'll still use MPEG-2. Warner, who has already released VC-1 encoded HD DVDs, will be releasing the same titles on BD in... you guessed it... MPEG-2.
Nobody is arguing that VC-1 does not outperform MPEG2. However, it is nowhere near as good as H.264 MPEG4. We know it, the SMPTE knows it, and of course in their dark hearts, Microsoft knows it too. The problem currently is that the machines on the market do not have good enough decoder chips - again, referencing the problems that will be solved with the Sigma chip hits the market - to decode the H.264 codec. But once the good chips hit the market, it is doubtful that the HD-DVD format will ever back H.264 because that would cheese off Microsoft. And the success of VC-1 and iHD is crucial to Microsoft's entertainment expansion plans. If HD-DVD dies, Microsoft loses out on both VC-1 royalities as well as iHD licensing and places the Xbox360 ultimately at a competitive disadvantage.
Just because Sony hasn't announced H.264 support does not add up to much. They don't even have their own player on the market yet. And until then - as well as the PS3 launch - I doubt they will announce support. After all, currently, Sony is only interested in Blu-Ray being viable for upcoming consumers; they really do not want us buying the Samsung player currently. So no, I (also) highly doubt your assertion that Sony will still cling to MPEG2 when the higher capacity discs hit the market. Furthermore, Sony already uses H.264 on their PSP UMD titles. Obviously, the reason why they haven't done likewise on Blu-Ray discs has to do with the decoder chips, not due to any sort of conspiracy or incompetence factor that you seem to be asserting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Media_Disc
Based upon the info on that link, it is apparent that Sony is no stranger to encoding using H.264 and thus there is no logical reason to conclude that Sony won't shift to using H.264 on all of their Blu-Ray titles once their own players and the PS3 ships.
As for Warner Home Video, they have a vested interest in making sure Blu-Ray does not succeed. Warner and Toshiba both make quite a sizeable fortune off the royalties from the DVD standard. They both want HD-DVD to succeed so they can maintain those royalities. Had Sony and the rest of the Blu-Ray Disc Association agreed to preserving the Warner/Toshiba royalities, there would not be a format war currently, and Toshiba would not have prostituted itself to Microsoft over iHD and VC-1.
Furthermore, iHD is apparently much easier to develop for than BD-J. That's one reason why there are already HD DVDs with interesting new features (like the "In Movie Experience" on Bourne Supremacy) vs. no new extra features for any BD discs, nor are there any discs announced with new (BD-J) features.
Can any other posters shill the Microsoft party line more? "They" said the Sony Playstation2 was "too hard" to program for versus programming for the Microsoft Xbox. Which platform won again? Which platform had the most third-party support? That's right, the "too hard to program for" Playstation2. The reason why there are extra features on the current HD-DVD titles has to do with the fact that they are using VC-1 and the Blu-Ray titles are using the space-hungry MPEG2 codec currently. There's no room right now on Blu-Ray releases for the "extras" you are bringing up. It has nothing to do with "how hard" it is to program BD-J.
Reminds me of how Warner Bros. people started the whole "Brandon Routh is so well endowed that special effects are having to be used to tone down his crotch for *Superman Returns*" rumor that was circulating in the trades and online months before the film debuted. It was a recycled rumor that Warners had used back before the release of the original *Superman* with Christopher Reeve to generate buzz for potential female viewers. Kinda like how you are recycling/repeating the "BD-J is too hard to program for" rumor.
Let us also remember that Apple sits on the Blu-Ray Disc Association board. They could have supported either format, but they chose Blu-Ray for some reason...hmmm... Kinda like how they chose Dolby's AAC format as their "next generation" audio codec instead of Microsoft's (tin can sounding) WMA audio format. That speaks volumes.
First, I mentioned that the outputting problem is common with both formats the existing HD-DVD AND Blu-Ray decks currently on the market because the decoder chip is just not that great. That is why people are making a big deal about the upcoming Sigma Designs decoder chip that will come standard in both formats' second generation machines. Look it up.
And deinterlacing an input signal is not as good as the outputting device outputting in progressive scan in the first place. Do you want to argue that upscaling DVD players are just as good as the current HD formats while you are at it?
Sony has not stated any plan to use H.264 encoding. No studio has stated any plans for H.264 encoding either. It's either MPEG-2 vs. VC-1, and if you've watched anything on HD DVD, you'd know it's capable of amazing results. Compared to all available Blu-Ray discs, VC-1 beats MPEG-2. A better Blu-ray deck will not make the crappy MPEG-2 discs look better, because the problem is with the disc, not the player. Even when BD50 discs are viable (some day!), they'll still use MPEG-2. Warner, who has already released VC-1 encoded HD DVDs, will be releasing the same titles on BD in... you guessed it... MPEG-2.
Nobody is arguing that VC-1 does not outperform MPEG2. However, it is nowhere near as good as H.264 MPEG4. We know it, the SMPTE knows it, and of course in their dark hearts, Microsoft knows it too. The problem currently is that the machines on the market do not have good enough decoder chips - again, referencing the problems that will be solved with the Sigma chip hits the market - to decode the H.264 codec. But once the good chips hit the market, it is doubtful that the HD-DVD format will ever back H.264 because that would cheese off Microsoft. And the success of VC-1 and iHD is crucial to Microsoft's entertainment expansion plans. If HD-DVD dies, Microsoft loses out on both VC-1 royalities as well as iHD licensing and places the Xbox360 ultimately at a competitive disadvantage.
Just because Sony hasn't announced H.264 support does not add up to much. They don't even have their own player on the market yet. And until then - as well as the PS3 launch - I doubt they will announce support. After all, currently, Sony is only interested in Blu-Ray being viable for upcoming consumers; they really do not want us buying the Samsung player currently. So no, I (also) highly doubt your assertion that Sony will still cling to MPEG2 when the higher capacity discs hit the market. Furthermore, Sony already uses H.264 on their PSP UMD titles. Obviously, the reason why they haven't done likewise on Blu-Ray discs has to do with the decoder chips, not due to any sort of conspiracy or incompetence factor that you seem to be asserting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Media_Disc
Based upon the info on that link, it is apparent that Sony is no stranger to encoding using H.264 and thus there is no logical reason to conclude that Sony won't shift to using H.264 on all of their Blu-Ray titles once their own players and the PS3 ships.
As for Warner Home Video, they have a vested interest in making sure Blu-Ray does not succeed. Warner and Toshiba both make quite a sizeable fortune off the royalties from the DVD standard. They both want HD-DVD to succeed so they can maintain those royalities. Had Sony and the rest of the Blu-Ray Disc Association agreed to preserving the Warner/Toshiba royalities, there would not be a format war currently, and Toshiba would not have prostituted itself to Microsoft over iHD and VC-1.
Furthermore, iHD is apparently much easier to develop for than BD-J. That's one reason why there are already HD DVDs with interesting new features (like the "In Movie Experience" on Bourne Supremacy) vs. no new extra features for any BD discs, nor are there any discs announced with new (BD-J) features.
Can any other posters shill the Microsoft party line more? "They" said the Sony Playstation2 was "too hard" to program for versus programming for the Microsoft Xbox. Which platform won again? Which platform had the most third-party support? That's right, the "too hard to program for" Playstation2. The reason why there are extra features on the current HD-DVD titles has to do with the fact that they are using VC-1 and the Blu-Ray titles are using the space-hungry MPEG2 codec currently. There's no room right now on Blu-Ray releases for the "extras" you are bringing up. It has nothing to do with "how hard" it is to program BD-J.
Reminds me of how Warner Bros. people started the whole "Brandon Routh is so well endowed that special effects are having to be used to tone down his crotch for *Superman Returns*" rumor that was circulating in the trades and online months before the film debuted. It was a recycled rumor that Warners had used back before the release of the original *Superman* with Christopher Reeve to generate buzz for potential female viewers. Kinda like how you are recycling/repeating the "BD-J is too hard to program for" rumor.
Let us also remember that Apple sits on the Blu-Ray Disc Association board. They could have supported either format, but they chose Blu-Ray for some reason...hmmm... Kinda like how they chose Dolby's AAC format as their "next generation" audio codec instead of Microsoft's (tin can sounding) WMA audio format. That speaks volumes.
BoyBach
Nov 29, 01:04 PM
In the industy's defense, since it is their copyrighted content, they technically get to set the rules.
That's the problem. The industry thinks that they can set the rules, when in fact it's the law makers and the judges that decide and implement them. I just wish the they (the politicians/judges, etc) would show a bit more understanding and concern for the consumer. After all, we're the ones who need protecting.
That's the problem. The industry thinks that they can set the rules, when in fact it's the law makers and the judges that decide and implement them. I just wish the they (the politicians/judges, etc) would show a bit more understanding and concern for the consumer. After all, we're the ones who need protecting.
more...
slb
Oct 5, 05:53 PM
This is my first post. It takes a lot for me to stop being a lurker, but the idea that any user can resize a textarea on a site I design, dynamically redrawing the page, is among the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. This will break valid page layouts in new and unheard of ways. Designers make form elements a size and shape for a reason.
I look forward to finding a way using JavaScript to disable that feature the day that browser is released.
On the contrary, resizeable textareas are part of the CSS3 standard; Safari 3.0 will simply be the first mainstream browser to implement it. Once you try it, I promise you will not want to go back. It's really a non-issue, and I'm surprised anybody's complaining about it to the point they would disable this end-user feature using JavaScript. I'll just disable JavaScript on your site, then, buddy.
I look forward to finding a way using JavaScript to disable that feature the day that browser is released.
On the contrary, resizeable textareas are part of the CSS3 standard; Safari 3.0 will simply be the first mainstream browser to implement it. Once you try it, I promise you will not want to go back. It's really a non-issue, and I'm surprised anybody's complaining about it to the point they would disable this end-user feature using JavaScript. I'll just disable JavaScript on your site, then, buddy.
mrgreen4242
Nov 29, 12:50 PM
Apple/we should just ask for DVD-Video burning rights in exchange for limiting the number of iPods you can play a movie on. Be a fair trade, in my book. I'd use the iTMS store for movies if they did that. The ability to burn to regular CDs is what keeps me in the iTMS (I have some sort of legal, unrestricted backup right), and I don't think I am alone in this way of thought.
more...
psimac
Apr 4, 02:43 PM
They have no relationship with me, because their subscription costs for the iPad app are so out of line. Maybe they should get with the program. And if you subscribe to the paper version, there's no incentive to get the iOS version.
These companies should be trying to get their content out to as many people as possible and sell advertising, so that they can survive. What if Netflix just sold thru their own system and charged high fees? They'd be Blockbusted now.
Wall Street Journal seems to be the only one that gets it.
These companies should be trying to get their content out to as many people as possible and sell advertising, so that they can survive. What if Netflix just sold thru their own system and charged high fees? They'd be Blockbusted now.
Wall Street Journal seems to be the only one that gets it.
TSE
Aug 7, 03:22 PM
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j74/casdude/Untitled-2.jpg
Windows 7 Home Premium. :)
Windows 7 Home Premium. :)
more...
eawmp1
May 2, 04:46 PM
I like to give blood but how could I find where to go to do this? Where can I search for a place close to where I live?
http://www.redcrossblood.org/socal
http://www.redcrossblood.org/socal
MikeyTree
Jan 9, 02:24 PM
I was disappointed that there was nothing for the Mac. Even just release dates/months for Leopard and iWork 07 would have sated me.
The iPhone is cool, but it's too expensive and has far too little memory for me to actually consider buying it.
The iPhone is cool, but it's too expensive and has far too little memory for me to actually consider buying it.
scotty96LSC
Feb 8, 07:30 PM
Love this wallpaper. The link however seams to be for a diffrent version.
Do you have this version?
Thanks
That is where I got this. You could also use tiny eye to find other versions if you need to.
Do you have this version?
Thanks
That is where I got this. You could also use tiny eye to find other versions if you need to.
boshii
Mar 8, 11:28 AM
Old news. Stop promoting it.
bousozoku
Feb 15, 12:43 PM
We're afraid to. We don't want to anger you, for you are universally considered to be the meanest member. I am thankful that I live 1000 miles away. That thing you did with the puppies and the fireworks "just to see what would happen" still haunts me.
;)
What? You don't like hot dogs?
;)
What? You don't like hot dogs?
kilowattradio
Aug 31, 05:17 AM
http://www.triblocal.com/Downers_Grove/detail/213194.html
An Apple customer left their baby in a car while they shopped. iPhone users notified the PD.
An Apple customer left their baby in a car while they shopped. iPhone users notified the PD.
MattyMac
Sep 26, 10:42 PM
Just in time for my renewal:D
scotty96LSC
Dec 3, 07:53 PM
http://idisk.mac.com/txwhitehouse//Public/Dec10.png
Link (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.youwall.com/papel/sexy_christmas_girl_wallpaper_29b13.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.youwall.com/index.php%3Fver%3DMjg3Ng%3D%3D&usg=__NPTg8-cSA8miURIgHSuptg5HwCQ=&h=1200&w=1920&sz=330&hl=en&start=159&sig2=IM6Er8u0qRQJEJ85utnbTA&zoom=1&tbnid=yJNITrgYEncrsM:&tbnh=135&tbnw=191&ei=_J35TIPPE4G78gaCzNSdCQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsexy%2Bwallpapers%2Bfor%2Bchristmas%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DX%2 6rls%3Den%26biw%3D1405%26bih%3D655%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C4042&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=1090&vpy=221&dur=414&hovh=137&hovw=219&tx=209&ty=93&oei=v535TIbUPMKAlAf1q42pBw&esq=14&page=8&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:19,s:159&biw=1405&bih=655)
Link (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.youwall.com/papel/sexy_christmas_girl_wallpaper_29b13.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.youwall.com/index.php%3Fver%3DMjg3Ng%3D%3D&usg=__NPTg8-cSA8miURIgHSuptg5HwCQ=&h=1200&w=1920&sz=330&hl=en&start=159&sig2=IM6Er8u0qRQJEJ85utnbTA&zoom=1&tbnid=yJNITrgYEncrsM:&tbnh=135&tbnw=191&ei=_J35TIPPE4G78gaCzNSdCQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsexy%2Bwallpapers%2Bfor%2Bchristmas%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DX%2 6rls%3Den%26biw%3D1405%26bih%3D655%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C4042&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=1090&vpy=221&dur=414&hovh=137&hovw=219&tx=209&ty=93&oei=v535TIbUPMKAlAf1q42pBw&esq=14&page=8&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:19,s:159&biw=1405&bih=655)
0 comments:
Post a Comment