Philalbe
Mar 20, 07:36 AM
I don't need her money that bad. Living headache free and a bit lighter in the wallet is OK with me.[/QUOTE]
I agree. I think keeping your dignity and sanity intact are more important than a little extra money. I'll probably do the business card for this guy, but if he approaches me with any larger projects, I'll most likely turn him down. :)
I agree. I think keeping your dignity and sanity intact are more important than a little extra money. I'll probably do the business card for this guy, but if he approaches me with any larger projects, I'll most likely turn him down. :)
Mal
Feb 15, 11:52 AM
Amazing set of icons! Could you tell me where to get them?:)
They appear to be Litho System (http://iconfactory.com/freeware/preview/lit0). Always liked them.
jW
They appear to be Litho System (http://iconfactory.com/freeware/preview/lit0). Always liked them.
jW
reubs
Dec 8, 08:43 AM
I love your desktop! Any chance you could give me a link for the icons you have (dock and the hard-drive icon which is awesome)?
Thanks!
Edit:
The wallpaper is great too lol :D
Thank!
ChristMAC Icons: http://MDGraphs.deviantart.com/art/ChristMAC-icons-188611712?q=boost%3Apopular+ChristMAC&qo=0
Santa Mail: http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=§ion=&global=1&q=santa+mail#/d2fmp4j
Bowtie-Christmas (used for iTunes): http://cl.ly/1F2u3a392N2t3n3Z2A1I
WP (don't know original source): http://cl.ly/0v1K210C1v1m1q053r05
Thanks!
Edit:
The wallpaper is great too lol :D
Thank!
ChristMAC Icons: http://MDGraphs.deviantart.com/art/ChristMAC-icons-188611712?q=boost%3Apopular+ChristMAC&qo=0
Santa Mail: http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=§ion=&global=1&q=santa+mail#/d2fmp4j
Bowtie-Christmas (used for iTunes): http://cl.ly/1F2u3a392N2t3n3Z2A1I
WP (don't know original source): http://cl.ly/0v1K210C1v1m1q053r05
vvebster
Feb 2, 09:46 AM
February Desktop
more...
amacgenius
Oct 23, 04:24 AM
http://att.macrumors.com/contest/7BBCCE.jpg
volantdefiat
Apr 7, 07:44 AM
12 pb per storage unit maybe.
while it seems to be a mindbogling amount of data- it does not seem like a lot for datacenter storage.
it will fill about 24 datacenter cabinets - the giganormous thing apple is building on the east coast should be able to host 1000's of such cabinets.
to put it in perspective - some netbook vendors provide 250 gb of online storage with the purchase of their kit. if 40000 users fill up their allotted space with photos, videos documents etc , that will fill up 10 PB of storage. now consider there are 2.5 million ipads out there.... if mobileme users start using 100Gb a piece of online storage to store videos of their dog playing in the park etc. in the cloud, that is 250 million GB or 250 PB of data. so unless i am reading this wrong 12 PB doesnt seem to cut it.
while it seems to be a mindbogling amount of data- it does not seem like a lot for datacenter storage.
it will fill about 24 datacenter cabinets - the giganormous thing apple is building on the east coast should be able to host 1000's of such cabinets.
to put it in perspective - some netbook vendors provide 250 gb of online storage with the purchase of their kit. if 40000 users fill up their allotted space with photos, videos documents etc , that will fill up 10 PB of storage. now consider there are 2.5 million ipads out there.... if mobileme users start using 100Gb a piece of online storage to store videos of their dog playing in the park etc. in the cloud, that is 250 million GB or 250 PB of data. so unless i am reading this wrong 12 PB doesnt seem to cut it.
more...
%252B2.jpg "taylor swift love story")
MacBytes
Oct 13, 12:57 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)
Category: News and Press Releases
Link: Apple Awarded 'Anti-Sexting' Patent (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20101013135733)
Description:: none
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug
Category: News and Press Releases
Link: Apple Awarded 'Anti-Sexting' Patent (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20101013135733)
Description:: none
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug
Michaelgtrusa
Feb 18, 04:42 PM
It's now half term for us UK students, and i'm trying to calm myself down after a very stressful half term! So here peace central (With a bit of Beethovens Waldstein playing in the background) :rolleyes:
http://cl.ly/3g1d1a1u2M3H3F341k0S/Screen_shot_2011-02-18_at_20.19.11.png
Where did you find this?
http://cl.ly/3g1d1a1u2M3H3F341k0S/Screen_shot_2011-02-18_at_20.19.11.png
Where did you find this?
more...
Lord Blackadder
Jan 20, 01:42 PM
The Golf GTD is brilliant... I think it's a better everyday car than the GTI, I test drove one (no intention of buying, but something to do on a Sunday afternoon) and its in-gear performance is proper... :eek: And it's far more sophisticated looking than the GTI too.
That said, it's a shame that VW haven't launched a Polo GTD... yet, IMHO the Polo GTI is the true spiritual successor to the MK I Golf GTI, more compact, lighter with an absolute peach of an engine... a GTD would offer comparable performance, but with extraordinary fuel efficiency. :eek: The Polo's better looking too... ;)
If the GTD was available in North America, it would be my first choice for a new car. I think the GTD is the kind of car I've been waiting for someone to build for years. Too bad it will never, ever come here. :(
I agree with you on the Polo. Frankly VW could really hit the ground running in the small car race here in the states if they federalized the Polo. It's fuel economy numbers would compete well with the hybrids, and it's simpler and cheaper. But, as I posted at the beginning of this thread, VW's strategy is focused in a totally different direction. VW seems to be gambling that the small car/hybrid craze in the US is a short-term fad, and that once the economy improves people will go back to wanting big, cheap cars. That's especially depressing considering that VW is the only manufacturer in the US who sells reasonably priced diesel cars, and one of the few (the only?) that has always kept a small hatch in the lineup.
I simply don't agree with this at all. You're basically saying that the Altima's 4 banger is inefficient which couldn't be further from the truth. I can drive to Phoenix, AZ from San Diego, CA - a distance of ~500 miles - on half a tank.
Frankly I'm skeptical. I owned a 1999 Altima GXE with a manual transmition. Great great car for what it was. I'd still be driving it if some drunken moron in a truck hadn't totaled it. Anyways, my Altima was equipped with a different engine (KA24DE 4-cylinder, 2.4L) but was about the same size as your engine. It weighed slightly less, about 250lbs or so. Under normal driving conditions I could manage 30-31mpg combined cycle. On the highway, if I kept the speed down, I could do 35mpg (my best numbers were from a 360 mile trip @60mph - 39.5mpg). I had a 15.9 gallon tank, which meant I could get just about 500 miles on a tank of gas (I was brave once and drove 492 miles on one tank before I chickened out).
I don't know which year Altima you have, but you have a 20 gallon fuel tank and depending on what year, your EPA mileage is between 20-23 city and 27-32 highway. I'll grant you the 32mpg number because my Altima did better than the EPA numbers. 32mpg will get you 320 miles on half a tank. Heck, I'll even give you my best 39.5mpg number - but that still only gets you 395 miles on half a tank. In order to go 500 miles on half a tank of gas, you'd have to be getting 50mpg. And I don't believe that. I don't know of a single gasoline-powered car that can go 1000 miles on one full tank.
The Altima's engine is not particularly inefficient, but the car weighs 3000lbs. A smaller car with a smaller engine has the potential to get better fuel economy.
I don't call that inefficient at all, especially since I know for a fact that a Prius can't do that. Also the Versa's engine is a 2.0 which should be less powerful but in theory more efficient than the Altima, except for aerodynamics. It's just not. The only advantage the Versa has over the Altima is the interior roof trim - it really does cut wind noise better than the Altima. Beyond that, the Versa is an overpriced piece of crap, quite frankly.
I've never driven one, so I can't say one way or the other. It's 400+lbs lighter than the Altima, probably less aerodynamic, and the 1.8L engine has 50ish less horsepower.
But it's not all small cars in the US that suck. Honda and Acura have been making efficient small cars for years. I don't agree that the small car market is ignored - rather, it's not focused on. Diesel, in my opinion, is a failed market out here. Great concept, but there just isn't enough steam behind it. I applaud Volkswagen for trying. But the reality is that everyone has it wrong. The answer isn't petrol because it's limited, it isn't electric because capacity is at a premium, and it isn't hybrid because the cost is prohibitive. The answer lies in the very thing that surrounds us constantly. I'm afraid I just won't be alive to see people realize it.
The thing is, diesel isn't just a great concept - it's every bit as proven as gasoline-engined cars. It's been in use for over 100 years.
Buy the way, the 2007 Civic's real-world mileage is no better than my 1999 Altima's was, so I don't think Honda has a lockdown on fuel economy. I find it odd that you don't seem to think size has any effect on fuel economy. Some small cars are probably less efficient than they could be, but a larger car is always going to be potentially less efficient.
That said, it's a shame that VW haven't launched a Polo GTD... yet, IMHO the Polo GTI is the true spiritual successor to the MK I Golf GTI, more compact, lighter with an absolute peach of an engine... a GTD would offer comparable performance, but with extraordinary fuel efficiency. :eek: The Polo's better looking too... ;)
If the GTD was available in North America, it would be my first choice for a new car. I think the GTD is the kind of car I've been waiting for someone to build for years. Too bad it will never, ever come here. :(
I agree with you on the Polo. Frankly VW could really hit the ground running in the small car race here in the states if they federalized the Polo. It's fuel economy numbers would compete well with the hybrids, and it's simpler and cheaper. But, as I posted at the beginning of this thread, VW's strategy is focused in a totally different direction. VW seems to be gambling that the small car/hybrid craze in the US is a short-term fad, and that once the economy improves people will go back to wanting big, cheap cars. That's especially depressing considering that VW is the only manufacturer in the US who sells reasonably priced diesel cars, and one of the few (the only?) that has always kept a small hatch in the lineup.
I simply don't agree with this at all. You're basically saying that the Altima's 4 banger is inefficient which couldn't be further from the truth. I can drive to Phoenix, AZ from San Diego, CA - a distance of ~500 miles - on half a tank.
Frankly I'm skeptical. I owned a 1999 Altima GXE with a manual transmition. Great great car for what it was. I'd still be driving it if some drunken moron in a truck hadn't totaled it. Anyways, my Altima was equipped with a different engine (KA24DE 4-cylinder, 2.4L) but was about the same size as your engine. It weighed slightly less, about 250lbs or so. Under normal driving conditions I could manage 30-31mpg combined cycle. On the highway, if I kept the speed down, I could do 35mpg (my best numbers were from a 360 mile trip @60mph - 39.5mpg). I had a 15.9 gallon tank, which meant I could get just about 500 miles on a tank of gas (I was brave once and drove 492 miles on one tank before I chickened out).
I don't know which year Altima you have, but you have a 20 gallon fuel tank and depending on what year, your EPA mileage is between 20-23 city and 27-32 highway. I'll grant you the 32mpg number because my Altima did better than the EPA numbers. 32mpg will get you 320 miles on half a tank. Heck, I'll even give you my best 39.5mpg number - but that still only gets you 395 miles on half a tank. In order to go 500 miles on half a tank of gas, you'd have to be getting 50mpg. And I don't believe that. I don't know of a single gasoline-powered car that can go 1000 miles on one full tank.
The Altima's engine is not particularly inefficient, but the car weighs 3000lbs. A smaller car with a smaller engine has the potential to get better fuel economy.
I don't call that inefficient at all, especially since I know for a fact that a Prius can't do that. Also the Versa's engine is a 2.0 which should be less powerful but in theory more efficient than the Altima, except for aerodynamics. It's just not. The only advantage the Versa has over the Altima is the interior roof trim - it really does cut wind noise better than the Altima. Beyond that, the Versa is an overpriced piece of crap, quite frankly.
I've never driven one, so I can't say one way or the other. It's 400+lbs lighter than the Altima, probably less aerodynamic, and the 1.8L engine has 50ish less horsepower.
But it's not all small cars in the US that suck. Honda and Acura have been making efficient small cars for years. I don't agree that the small car market is ignored - rather, it's not focused on. Diesel, in my opinion, is a failed market out here. Great concept, but there just isn't enough steam behind it. I applaud Volkswagen for trying. But the reality is that everyone has it wrong. The answer isn't petrol because it's limited, it isn't electric because capacity is at a premium, and it isn't hybrid because the cost is prohibitive. The answer lies in the very thing that surrounds us constantly. I'm afraid I just won't be alive to see people realize it.
The thing is, diesel isn't just a great concept - it's every bit as proven as gasoline-engined cars. It's been in use for over 100 years.
Buy the way, the 2007 Civic's real-world mileage is no better than my 1999 Altima's was, so I don't think Honda has a lockdown on fuel economy. I find it odd that you don't seem to think size has any effect on fuel economy. Some small cars are probably less efficient than they could be, but a larger car is always going to be potentially less efficient.
Dunkm1n
Oct 15, 10:21 PM
Gotta keep it true to Apple.
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/1580/picture1azp.th.png (http://img39.imageshack.us/i/picture1azp.png/)
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/1580/picture1azp.th.png (http://img39.imageshack.us/i/picture1azp.png/)
more...
santaliqueur
May 2, 04:53 PM
Except that the question "male to male sex" is discriminatory. It doesn't ask you "received anal sex", it asks you about your sexual orientation. Plain and simple, discriminatory and non-scientific because male-to-female sex has the exact same risks.
Has the exact same risks on an individual basis. But statistically, gay males have a higher-than-average ratio of HIV. Not sure about other STDs, but I would guess it's the same as HIV. Not passing judgment here, just pointing out that as a whole, gay males have a higher rate of HIV.
Disclaimer (or flame suit): I don't care about gay marriage one way or the other. In fact, I wish the government would stay out of ALL marriage, gay or straight. Apart from identifying domestic partnerships for tax purposes (something any two adults should be able to enter into), the government has no business establishing marriage definitions. Your church may vary, and you may choose to believe whatever you wish, but our tax dollars should be used more effectively, than to ban two gay dudes from getting married. Stay out of my business, and I will stay out of yours. Promise.
Rant over! :)
Has the exact same risks on an individual basis. But statistically, gay males have a higher-than-average ratio of HIV. Not sure about other STDs, but I would guess it's the same as HIV. Not passing judgment here, just pointing out that as a whole, gay males have a higher rate of HIV.
Disclaimer (or flame suit): I don't care about gay marriage one way or the other. In fact, I wish the government would stay out of ALL marriage, gay or straight. Apart from identifying domestic partnerships for tax purposes (something any two adults should be able to enter into), the government has no business establishing marriage definitions. Your church may vary, and you may choose to believe whatever you wish, but our tax dollars should be used more effectively, than to ban two gay dudes from getting married. Stay out of my business, and I will stay out of yours. Promise.
Rant over! :)
Mr.Hey
Dec 14, 09:17 PM
lol. He's like WTF? Mac can't figure out his own Mac.
I like it. :cool: :D
I like it. :cool: :D
more...
Heijtink
Apr 6, 01:52 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
It'll take you little over 111 days to download it's entire capacity via Thunderbolt.
It'll take you little over 111 days to download it's entire capacity via Thunderbolt.
gorgeousninja
Apr 21, 09:12 AM
Victory? Apple is at war?
no, it's more like a duck hunt..
no, it's more like a duck hunt..
more...
Shivetya
Apr 8, 04:42 AM
Some of the customer reviews on the iTunes download page are very critical of the controls for some games. Not sure how well they've ported these to the touch screen interface....
Depends on if you look further than the displayed controls. By that I mean, with Tempest there is a slider on the left that lets you rotate around the play field and firing buttons on the right. However, what many miss is that you can control the entire movement around the screen by touch.
Same for centipede/millipede/etc. Apparently most have a simulated control on the screen but they also have touch capability for movement control on the game surface as well.
Depends on if you look further than the displayed controls. By that I mean, with Tempest there is a slider on the left that lets you rotate around the play field and firing buttons on the right. However, what many miss is that you can control the entire movement around the screen by touch.
Same for centipede/millipede/etc. Apparently most have a simulated control on the screen but they also have touch capability for movement control on the game surface as well.
Kobushi
Dec 19, 12:03 AM
Another stickman Flash onion-skinned animation.
That's pretty nifty! Pardon my Flash ignorance, but what do you mean by Onion-skinned?
That's pretty nifty! Pardon my Flash ignorance, but what do you mean by Onion-skinned?
more...
maflynn
Feb 23, 09:05 AM
I don't know any details but if you're getting music without paying for it, I can't help but think its not kosher.
AndrewR23
Mar 27, 03:12 PM
Congrats on finishing your first semester of law school. Couple more things you will learn in the next couple of years:
1. Illegal does not mean criminal. There are many laws that create liability that are not criminal. Any tort law, for example. Copyright laws are another example. Thus, no one cares what any prosecutor would do.
2. You don't need a grand jury for all criminal charges. You definitely don't need one for false advertising.
randy, are you concluding this is false advertising?
1. Illegal does not mean criminal. There are many laws that create liability that are not criminal. Any tort law, for example. Copyright laws are another example. Thus, no one cares what any prosecutor would do.
2. You don't need a grand jury for all criminal charges. You definitely don't need one for false advertising.
randy, are you concluding this is false advertising?
Ice Dragon
Sep 18, 11:06 PM
A friend of mine brought up that early in her youth, she played a game for Mac on a floppy disk called Jenny's Journeys. Has anyone else heard of this? Do you know where to buy/download it?
MacRumors
Apr 13, 09:20 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/13/touch-panel-suppliers-claim-no-timeline-for-shifting-to-iphone-5-production/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/13/101925-iphone_4_corner_shot.jpg
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/13/101925-iphone_4_corner_shot.jpg
tyguy2021
May 3, 11:37 AM
Quick Question,
Can I activate a CS5.5 trial after using a CS5 trial?
Thanks so much for any feedback.
Can I activate a CS5.5 trial after using a CS5 trial?
Thanks so much for any feedback.
Anuba
Jan 10, 06:27 PM
iPhone - revolutionary in that it raises the bar VERY high for other manufacturers...But it still smells like first generation to me. Behind the arguably flawless design, usability and performance issues are already being raised. Kudos to Steve and his enormously talented staff, but I'll pass on early adoption. But slick..oh so slick..No one is as good as SJ for coordinating such a project. Now let's see how it sells.
It does raise the bar for other manufacturers, but this isn't the portable media player market. In business you either have to be the first, or the cheapest (neither applies to iPhone), simply being the best doesn't cut it. Apple and its devotees have argued for ages that MacOS is so superior to Windows it's ridiculous, but they've never managed to even put a dent in Microsoft's market share.
With the iPod Apple was able to hog 60% of the market before the competition even woke up, but here they're up against Nokia, SonyEricsson, Motorola, Siemens, Blackberry, Palm/Treo, HP and a bunch of other giants with well established distribution channels and deals with every carrier on earth. I hope for Apple's sake they've patented the crap out of this thing because the first SonyEricsson iPhone killer is probably being designed as we speak.
BTW, was there any mention of games on this thing? Without games, kids aren't touching the iPhone with a ten foot pole, and aging businessmen who always groan over buttons being too small may not be into the idea of *no* buttons.
It does raise the bar for other manufacturers, but this isn't the portable media player market. In business you either have to be the first, or the cheapest (neither applies to iPhone), simply being the best doesn't cut it. Apple and its devotees have argued for ages that MacOS is so superior to Windows it's ridiculous, but they've never managed to even put a dent in Microsoft's market share.
With the iPod Apple was able to hog 60% of the market before the competition even woke up, but here they're up against Nokia, SonyEricsson, Motorola, Siemens, Blackberry, Palm/Treo, HP and a bunch of other giants with well established distribution channels and deals with every carrier on earth. I hope for Apple's sake they've patented the crap out of this thing because the first SonyEricsson iPhone killer is probably being designed as we speak.
BTW, was there any mention of games on this thing? Without games, kids aren't touching the iPhone with a ten foot pole, and aging businessmen who always groan over buttons being too small may not be into the idea of *no* buttons.
psychometry
Oct 5, 05:44 PM
I did, in fact, mean using JavaScript on page load to disable the user from changing the size of the textarea, not within my browser. It's like using CSS to disable the dotted border Firefox puts around links when they are active.
Form elements, and the divs that contain them, often need either fixed widths or have widths that are proportional to their containers.
Take Google (http://www.google.com). Depending on how the layout is set up (this is just hypothetical), resizing the search box would push those three links next to it off into oblivion if they were all in a div that was fixed or proportional to the page width. It doesn't matter if Safari "dynamically redraws the page" since the div would still be calculated to be the same. Worse yet, depending on its overflow attribute, they could be pushed onto a new line.
I'd really not like to see Safari become the next IE 5. It already has its share of JavaScript bugs. This would just mean us designers would have to spend that much more time envisioning what would happen if a user resized every form element on every page and incorporating it into our layouts. This is why I hope there's a way to disable it outright.
Form elements, and the divs that contain them, often need either fixed widths or have widths that are proportional to their containers.
Take Google (http://www.google.com). Depending on how the layout is set up (this is just hypothetical), resizing the search box would push those three links next to it off into oblivion if they were all in a div that was fixed or proportional to the page width. It doesn't matter if Safari "dynamically redraws the page" since the div would still be calculated to be the same. Worse yet, depending on its overflow attribute, they could be pushed onto a new line.
I'd really not like to see Safari become the next IE 5. It already has its share of JavaScript bugs. This would just mean us designers would have to spend that much more time envisioning what would happen if a user resized every form element on every page and incorporating it into our layouts. This is why I hope there's a way to disable it outright.
AP_piano295
May 5, 10:12 PM
Care to give me some information? Wasn't Japan an ally to Germany? Didn't they attacked in Pearl Harbor?
Among other things we basically placed them under an oil embargo their need for natural resources and they're inability to attain them from us in a peaceful manner encouraged them to invade.
Also by your logic we are criminally involved in Iraq at the moment. Seeing as they were not aggressors against us, and we had no reason to invade.
Among other things we basically placed them under an oil embargo their need for natural resources and they're inability to attain them from us in a peaceful manner encouraged them to invade.
Also by your logic we are criminally involved in Iraq at the moment. Seeing as they were not aggressors against us, and we had no reason to invade.
No comments:
Post a Comment