Prom1
Mar 27, 10:08 PM
Doing Lion evaluation and testing I upgraded a Snow Leopard drive (an external clone of a working system drive) to Lion, BUT I GOOFED and somehow upgraded to Lion Server! It attempted to upgrade my server settings, which of course were not present, but did see the existing server and integrated itself into Open Directory it provided.
My conclusion from this mini-disaster is that unlike other OS X server versions, this one will be capable of an upgrade installation. That is great news! I'm still concerned about the apparently missing services, but I think we all need to wait for Snow Leopard Server BETAs instead of just relying on this Developer Preview. At that time I'll also be trying an upgrade of Snow Leopard Server cloned on an external drives.
(FWIW, I don't intend on running any of these Lion pre-releases on any internal drive because I don't have a system that I can risk.)
Awesome! Thanks for the update.
My conclusion from this mini-disaster is that unlike other OS X server versions, this one will be capable of an upgrade installation. That is great news! I'm still concerned about the apparently missing services, but I think we all need to wait for Snow Leopard Server BETAs instead of just relying on this Developer Preview. At that time I'll also be trying an upgrade of Snow Leopard Server cloned on an external drives.
(FWIW, I don't intend on running any of these Lion pre-releases on any internal drive because I don't have a system that I can risk.)
Awesome! Thanks for the update.
gmikesell
Mar 11, 10:55 AM
I'm here at stonebriar, #30 when I first got here, about 15 minutes later, I'm #32. no worries so far as long as there aren't spouses yet to join for everyone here currently. Lol. Line is up to The Sunglasses hut, on the corner from the skate rink.
CaryMacGuy
Aug 19, 10:22 AM
Goodbye FourSquare...it has been nice knowing you.
snberk103
Mar 18, 03:06 PM
I do still suck.
My problem is leaving my camera on Auto. I just don't know which setting to use. The more I read and the more opinions I see, the more confused I get. Plus when I see a good subject I don't want to mess it up with my ill informed selections...
I did just buy the Bryan Peterson Understanding Exposure book, so hopefully that will help set me off in the right direction!
I think sometimes people can be intimidated by all the choices. The trick, when learning, is simplify things, imo. So... read up on controlling Depth of Field using the aperture (f/stop). Ignore everything else. Set your camera on Aperture priority (usually Av) and let the camera do the work maintaining exposure. Then play with that for a while, just concentrating on the DoF. Find scenes where there is a series of objects from close to far, and focus on one of those objects, and then take 3 photos at the biggest/smallest f/stop # and then the middle. Don't move. Focus on an object at a different distance, and do the same thing.
Do this over and over again, with different subjects, until you get a feel for DoF. Don't sweat the other stuff, and don't even worry about perfect exposures at this point. Just get "good enough" exposures.
Now do the same thing for Shutter Priority. Except in this case, you find things that are moving. Fast, slow, close, far. Shoot the same type of motion with different shutter speeds - as different as possible, and then something in the middle. Don't worry about the other settings.
Copy and paste this post somewhere, and don't read anymore until you have done parts one and two above.
Now that you are comfortable with Apertures and Shutters ... concentrate on exposure control. The challenge is to get really good exposures, while at the same time getting the DoF and shutter speeds into an acceptable range. Read up on ISOs. One of the huge advantages of digital cameras is being able to change the ISO as you shoot. Use it. Also know that photography is often about compromises. In order to get the DoF you want, you may need to use a shutter speed that is not quite right, and/or an ISO that leaves noise, etc etc But that is just part of the game, and as you gain more experience you will find ways to mitigate these issues.
Also, there are two more ways to control DoF (lense focal length, and camera to subject distance.) But if you are reading this only after you did your homework, it won't be intimidating. It will be fun to figure it out. And if you read right through you are thinking " Aaaccckkk!!!" (I warned you, though... :) )
imho, of course
My problem is leaving my camera on Auto. I just don't know which setting to use. The more I read and the more opinions I see, the more confused I get. Plus when I see a good subject I don't want to mess it up with my ill informed selections...
I did just buy the Bryan Peterson Understanding Exposure book, so hopefully that will help set me off in the right direction!
I think sometimes people can be intimidated by all the choices. The trick, when learning, is simplify things, imo. So... read up on controlling Depth of Field using the aperture (f/stop). Ignore everything else. Set your camera on Aperture priority (usually Av) and let the camera do the work maintaining exposure. Then play with that for a while, just concentrating on the DoF. Find scenes where there is a series of objects from close to far, and focus on one of those objects, and then take 3 photos at the biggest/smallest f/stop # and then the middle. Don't move. Focus on an object at a different distance, and do the same thing.
Do this over and over again, with different subjects, until you get a feel for DoF. Don't sweat the other stuff, and don't even worry about perfect exposures at this point. Just get "good enough" exposures.
Now do the same thing for Shutter Priority. Except in this case, you find things that are moving. Fast, slow, close, far. Shoot the same type of motion with different shutter speeds - as different as possible, and then something in the middle. Don't worry about the other settings.
Copy and paste this post somewhere, and don't read anymore until you have done parts one and two above.
Now that you are comfortable with Apertures and Shutters ... concentrate on exposure control. The challenge is to get really good exposures, while at the same time getting the DoF and shutter speeds into an acceptable range. Read up on ISOs. One of the huge advantages of digital cameras is being able to change the ISO as you shoot. Use it. Also know that photography is often about compromises. In order to get the DoF you want, you may need to use a shutter speed that is not quite right, and/or an ISO that leaves noise, etc etc But that is just part of the game, and as you gain more experience you will find ways to mitigate these issues.
Also, there are two more ways to control DoF (lense focal length, and camera to subject distance.) But if you are reading this only after you did your homework, it won't be intimidating. It will be fun to figure it out. And if you read right through you are thinking " Aaaccckkk!!!" (I warned you, though... :) )
imho, of course
more...
mmmcheese
Sep 27, 04:09 PM
hah! you are ridiculous, trying to play quake on an integrated graphics chip.
shoulda bought a macbook pro.
that said, for the money apple is charging, they could have definitely picked a low end dedicated graphics chip from ati or nvidia. shame on apple
Wasn't Quake 1 a software rendered game? In that case, the graphics processor has nothing to do with it. Even if it is OpenGL accelerated, the integrated graphics should have no problem on such an old game.
shoulda bought a macbook pro.
that said, for the money apple is charging, they could have definitely picked a low end dedicated graphics chip from ati or nvidia. shame on apple
Wasn't Quake 1 a software rendered game? In that case, the graphics processor has nothing to do with it. Even if it is OpenGL accelerated, the integrated graphics should have no problem on such an old game.
Doctor Q
Sep 26, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax0
Oh ok, SCREEN SAVER mode, well that makes sense, I can't wait until you do it with the CLI version ::drool::
I am now benchmarking the CLI version of SETI@home on the Dual 1.25GHz G4. I was surprised that it was only marginally faster than the GUI version (a little under 6 hours per unit), but SETI's FAQ explains that the GUI on a dual processor uses one processor for the graphics and one for the computation, so the graphics "don't count" much. And, when running SETI CLI version, you still don't get the benefit of the dual processors (except to run something besides SETI at the same time, of course) unless you explicitly start two SETI processes at the same time, each in its own directory.
I will report my results of single-CLI runs after I determine the effect of the Energy Saver settings and the effect of the -verbose option that reports progress in the Terminal window. Then I will try double-CLI runs.
Oh ok, SCREEN SAVER mode, well that makes sense, I can't wait until you do it with the CLI version ::drool::
I am now benchmarking the CLI version of SETI@home on the Dual 1.25GHz G4. I was surprised that it was only marginally faster than the GUI version (a little under 6 hours per unit), but SETI's FAQ explains that the GUI on a dual processor uses one processor for the graphics and one for the computation, so the graphics "don't count" much. And, when running SETI CLI version, you still don't get the benefit of the dual processors (except to run something besides SETI at the same time, of course) unless you explicitly start two SETI processes at the same time, each in its own directory.
I will report my results of single-CLI runs after I determine the effect of the Energy Saver settings and the effect of the -verbose option that reports progress in the Terminal window. Then I will try double-CLI runs.
more...
keen-on-mac-1
Dec 2, 10:10 AM
That's great for this kid.
I hope he won't be in too much troubles because of his idea.
I hope he won't be in too much troubles because of his idea.
flosseR
Mar 29, 10:00 AM
Thatisme, please read this, and read it CAREFULLY...…
These are the complete comments to all your relevant posts:
"To the previous post about focal lengths, the difference in perceived focal length comes into account when you factor in the 1.6 cropped sensor. Since the sensor is physically smaller than a Full Frame or 1.3 crop sensor, it is essentially taking the image from the center portion of the lens.
So, you WILL get different focal lengths from 2 identically marked lenses where one is an EF-S lens and the other is an EF lens."
--INCORRECT on the same body you will get the EXACT same image
"Nikon also created a FULL FRame camera a while back that also had the ability to create a "cropped" image to increase it's rate of capture to achieve results in FPS that were similar to canon's 1D series bodies. Effectively if it captured less pixels per image, it could do so faster."
-- ALL Nikon Cameras can use ALL Nikon made lenses. And no, that wasn't the main reason to do that.
"YOU WILL GET DIFFERENT IMAGES IF YOU USE A 200mm EF Lens on a 7D (APS-C) and a 200mm EF-S lens on that same camera due to the FOVCF. on the EF lens, the 200mm assumes you are using the ENTIRE image circle of the lens, which you are not. You ARE using the ENTIRE image circle on the EF-S lens, which is a True 200mm for that camera. You have to use the ENTIRE image circle to get a true measure of the focal length. when you use only a portion of that image circle, you have to apply the FOVCF to get the EFFECTIVE focal length."
-- This is pulled out of you mind because it does not make sense at ALL and is so incorrect it's not even funny.. the lens is NOT adjusted to the focal length.. the length is the same.. the EFFECTIVE focal length (or Field of VIEW) comes from the sensor.. NOT the lens!!!
"ok. this is getting comical.
From your post, blasting me....
A canon 55-200 EF-s and a 70-200L lens at 200mm on a canon 7D will produce the exact same image...the same as if you would mount both lenses on a full frame body and crop the image by 1.6"
-- NO YOU WONT!!! what are you? a troll that needs feeding??
I compared BOTH lenses mounted on a 7d to BOTH lenses mounted on a 5d… if you crop the BOTH images from a 5d you have the same as BOTH from a 7d..
If you take BOTH shots from a 7d .. they are the SAME.. and they are the same if you shoot them both on a 5d..
GET
IT
IN
YOUR
BRAIN!
THE SENSOR MATTERS!!! NOT THE LENS..
geezz….
These are the complete comments to all your relevant posts:
"To the previous post about focal lengths, the difference in perceived focal length comes into account when you factor in the 1.6 cropped sensor. Since the sensor is physically smaller than a Full Frame or 1.3 crop sensor, it is essentially taking the image from the center portion of the lens.
So, you WILL get different focal lengths from 2 identically marked lenses where one is an EF-S lens and the other is an EF lens."
--INCORRECT on the same body you will get the EXACT same image
"Nikon also created a FULL FRame camera a while back that also had the ability to create a "cropped" image to increase it's rate of capture to achieve results in FPS that were similar to canon's 1D series bodies. Effectively if it captured less pixels per image, it could do so faster."
-- ALL Nikon Cameras can use ALL Nikon made lenses. And no, that wasn't the main reason to do that.
"YOU WILL GET DIFFERENT IMAGES IF YOU USE A 200mm EF Lens on a 7D (APS-C) and a 200mm EF-S lens on that same camera due to the FOVCF. on the EF lens, the 200mm assumes you are using the ENTIRE image circle of the lens, which you are not. You ARE using the ENTIRE image circle on the EF-S lens, which is a True 200mm for that camera. You have to use the ENTIRE image circle to get a true measure of the focal length. when you use only a portion of that image circle, you have to apply the FOVCF to get the EFFECTIVE focal length."
-- This is pulled out of you mind because it does not make sense at ALL and is so incorrect it's not even funny.. the lens is NOT adjusted to the focal length.. the length is the same.. the EFFECTIVE focal length (or Field of VIEW) comes from the sensor.. NOT the lens!!!
"ok. this is getting comical.
From your post, blasting me....
A canon 55-200 EF-s and a 70-200L lens at 200mm on a canon 7D will produce the exact same image...the same as if you would mount both lenses on a full frame body and crop the image by 1.6"
-- NO YOU WONT!!! what are you? a troll that needs feeding??
I compared BOTH lenses mounted on a 7d to BOTH lenses mounted on a 5d… if you crop the BOTH images from a 5d you have the same as BOTH from a 7d..
If you take BOTH shots from a 7d .. they are the SAME.. and they are the same if you shoot them both on a 5d..
GET
IT
IN
YOUR
BRAIN!
THE SENSOR MATTERS!!! NOT THE LENS..
geezz….
more...
wizard
Oct 6, 01:32 PM
No way in hell. They've already asked their developers to change app resolutions once. 3 screen sizes will never fly with developers.
99.999% likelihood of this being total nonsense.
More importantly if developers where paying attention they would have heard Apples very strong suggestion to avoid dependecies on screen size and resolution. Something Apple has been suggesting for years now.
99.999% likelihood of this being total nonsense.
More importantly if developers where paying attention they would have heard Apples very strong suggestion to avoid dependecies on screen size and resolution. Something Apple has been suggesting for years now.
Blue Velvet
Oct 26, 03:56 AM
I've decided to not go today... got other things to do. Have a good time, those that will be there. :)
more...
Jesus
Oct 20, 10:12 AM
I will most definitely be there, most likely at around 5 ish, hopefully in time to be in the first 500...
Stridder44
Sep 26, 12:17 AM
Im enjoying this chaos. Personally, unless it's music, podcasts are a bore and a waste of time. They're worse than blogs. Ok, maybe not that bad.
more...
mdntcallr
Aug 14, 10:02 AM
hah! actors!
MisterMe
Sep 14, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by bullrat
I'm a potential "switcher" that wants to buy an iMac now but I keep reading all the posts on the various Mac boards about how even the latest 17 inch iMac looks "choppy" or "jerky" when resizing or moving windows and how much slower browsing the Web is than bad old MS on Wintel.
I have not seen those posts, but then I have seen a lot of other bitching and moaning about one thing or another. Point No. 1: Although I don't have access to a 17" iMac, I do have Jaguar installed on my 2000 Firewire PowerBook G3. I don't see any of that choppiness and jerkiness that you mentioned. I would be astonished to find it on a faster machine like the 17" iMac. Point No. 2: Don't take anybody's word for it. Drive down to your nearest Apple retailer. Look at the machines yourself. That should end all arguments.
I'm so bored reading all the MHz doesn't matter blather. It does matter. When a brand new $2000 computer looks choppy using a brand new OS, then something is not right. It should be blazing on all basic functions. Flame away if you like, I see a lot of that on the Mac boards whenever someone happens to disagree with the party line but I'd wager I speak for a lot of potential switchers.
Again, have your actually seen this "choppiness" on that $2000 machine with the brand new OS? Now for the issue of MHz, browse the web sites of the expensive UNIX workstations and servers. Look at the clock speeds of the offerings from IBM, HP, SGI, and Sun. For the most part, you will see that their machines have clock speeds in the sub-GHz range. Yet these are the machines of choice when price is no object and the job must get done. Just think about this: these boards are filled with laments that effectively tell you that you need substaintially higher clock speeds to run a computer game than you need to simulate the gas flow in a jet engine. Don't you think that something is just a bit warped here?
I guess what really blows me away is that Apple appears to be *purposely* cripppling their systems. From what I understand it's possible for Apple to upgrade the processor, bus, memory and other components without any technical difficulties.
Think. Think. Think. Apple does not "appear" to be purposesly crippling its systems. The entirity of the corporation orbits about the Macintosh. No company would purposely cripple its central product. The fact that Apple is only one of two profitable personal computer manufacturers serve as loud testimony to the contrary. Just because a bunch of idle college students post things on the Internet does not make them so.
Okay, you can flame away now -- but all I'm saying is there are a lot of potential switchers waiting to plunk down their hard earned cash if Apple would get it together. I see more and more Apple folks waking up, no longer satisfied to let Apple off the hook for getting further and further behind the rest of the computer world.
If you are serious, then nobody wants to see you flamed. But again, think. Exactly how is Apple behind? If you are talking about the race toward bankruptcy, then I would agree with you. Apple is second to last in that race among personal computer makers.
The best OS deserves the best hardware or at least a lot better hardware than being currently used. You want premium prices? Then give us premium hardware. Geez, drop Motorola if they can't deliver the goods and go with IBM (don't go with Intel or AMD to keep that Apple distinction). But pul-leeze do it soon. I want to buy!
-bullrat
I cannot agree more that the best OS deserves the best currently available hardware. However, the machine has to be affordable. For many years, Apple has ranked among the highest quality hardware manufactures. I am not just talking about microprocessors. I've endured conditions that put Dells out to pasture while my Mac chugged along like a champ.
As for all this business about Motorola this, IBM that, and AMD the other thing, I will leave it to Apple to make the best decision. It knows the players and its own business better than any nitwit posting on an Internet bulletin board.
I'm a potential "switcher" that wants to buy an iMac now but I keep reading all the posts on the various Mac boards about how even the latest 17 inch iMac looks "choppy" or "jerky" when resizing or moving windows and how much slower browsing the Web is than bad old MS on Wintel.
I have not seen those posts, but then I have seen a lot of other bitching and moaning about one thing or another. Point No. 1: Although I don't have access to a 17" iMac, I do have Jaguar installed on my 2000 Firewire PowerBook G3. I don't see any of that choppiness and jerkiness that you mentioned. I would be astonished to find it on a faster machine like the 17" iMac. Point No. 2: Don't take anybody's word for it. Drive down to your nearest Apple retailer. Look at the machines yourself. That should end all arguments.
I'm so bored reading all the MHz doesn't matter blather. It does matter. When a brand new $2000 computer looks choppy using a brand new OS, then something is not right. It should be blazing on all basic functions. Flame away if you like, I see a lot of that on the Mac boards whenever someone happens to disagree with the party line but I'd wager I speak for a lot of potential switchers.
Again, have your actually seen this "choppiness" on that $2000 machine with the brand new OS? Now for the issue of MHz, browse the web sites of the expensive UNIX workstations and servers. Look at the clock speeds of the offerings from IBM, HP, SGI, and Sun. For the most part, you will see that their machines have clock speeds in the sub-GHz range. Yet these are the machines of choice when price is no object and the job must get done. Just think about this: these boards are filled with laments that effectively tell you that you need substaintially higher clock speeds to run a computer game than you need to simulate the gas flow in a jet engine. Don't you think that something is just a bit warped here?
I guess what really blows me away is that Apple appears to be *purposely* cripppling their systems. From what I understand it's possible for Apple to upgrade the processor, bus, memory and other components without any technical difficulties.
Think. Think. Think. Apple does not "appear" to be purposesly crippling its systems. The entirity of the corporation orbits about the Macintosh. No company would purposely cripple its central product. The fact that Apple is only one of two profitable personal computer manufacturers serve as loud testimony to the contrary. Just because a bunch of idle college students post things on the Internet does not make them so.
Okay, you can flame away now -- but all I'm saying is there are a lot of potential switchers waiting to plunk down their hard earned cash if Apple would get it together. I see more and more Apple folks waking up, no longer satisfied to let Apple off the hook for getting further and further behind the rest of the computer world.
If you are serious, then nobody wants to see you flamed. But again, think. Exactly how is Apple behind? If you are talking about the race toward bankruptcy, then I would agree with you. Apple is second to last in that race among personal computer makers.
The best OS deserves the best hardware or at least a lot better hardware than being currently used. You want premium prices? Then give us premium hardware. Geez, drop Motorola if they can't deliver the goods and go with IBM (don't go with Intel or AMD to keep that Apple distinction). But pul-leeze do it soon. I want to buy!
-bullrat
I cannot agree more that the best OS deserves the best currently available hardware. However, the machine has to be affordable. For many years, Apple has ranked among the highest quality hardware manufactures. I am not just talking about microprocessors. I've endured conditions that put Dells out to pasture while my Mac chugged along like a champ.
As for all this business about Motorola this, IBM that, and AMD the other thing, I will leave it to Apple to make the best decision. It knows the players and its own business better than any nitwit posting on an Internet bulletin board.
more...
rmwebs
Mar 25, 12:04 PM
Kodak, just admit that you royally screwed up and missed the boat when the world went digital, don't try to suck money from the winners by suing them. Why not get the money from customers instead by making products that people actually want to buy.
They have every right to sue if Apple violated their patent. They invented the technology and decided to protect it, period.
You'd be royally pissed if Microsoft came out with the mPhone which looked and felt exactly like an iPhone...parents exist for a very good reason.
The fact that kodak is a dying company is neither here nor there and has no place in this thread.
They have every right to sue if Apple violated their patent. They invented the technology and decided to protect it, period.
You'd be royally pissed if Microsoft came out with the mPhone which looked and felt exactly like an iPhone...parents exist for a very good reason.
The fact that kodak is a dying company is neither here nor there and has no place in this thread.
Eraserhead
Jun 12, 04:12 AM
I think I deleted/edited all the pages and categories you mentioned that you didn't have permission to change.
Thanks
I moved the Forum Posts category into the Mac Guides category. I don't think it deserves to be listed on the main page since it's more a secondary categorisation of articles and not generally a logical place to look for something.
That sounds sensible.
Some brief comments on the Guides category since I'm not sure everyone fully understands its purpose; it contains 'how to'-type articles as opposed to encyclopaedia-type articles, so it's not just a catch-all. Having said that, it might not be the most logical categorisation structure so I'm not completely against removing it.
I've been doing some changes, but I'll stop on this one for now. The problem with the guides category as it stands is that a lot of the articles should be somewhere else as well or just somewhere else. I think the best way forward is to give every article in it another category unless it really isn't appropriate and then go and recover any articles that are actually tips like that.
It'll need need a bit more work, but it'll make sure nothing is missed.
The new Mac Hardware/Macs categorisation seems strange. Having the extra step of having to go to the "Macs" category after going to the "Mac Hardware" category seems unnecessary and could make hardware articles hard to find.
I think you're right. Maybe its worth bringing the main articles into Mac Hardware and keeping the G3-G5 Macs in a category called G3 to G5 Macs or something.
Thanks
I moved the Forum Posts category into the Mac Guides category. I don't think it deserves to be listed on the main page since it's more a secondary categorisation of articles and not generally a logical place to look for something.
That sounds sensible.
Some brief comments on the Guides category since I'm not sure everyone fully understands its purpose; it contains 'how to'-type articles as opposed to encyclopaedia-type articles, so it's not just a catch-all. Having said that, it might not be the most logical categorisation structure so I'm not completely against removing it.
I've been doing some changes, but I'll stop on this one for now. The problem with the guides category as it stands is that a lot of the articles should be somewhere else as well or just somewhere else. I think the best way forward is to give every article in it another category unless it really isn't appropriate and then go and recover any articles that are actually tips like that.
It'll need need a bit more work, but it'll make sure nothing is missed.
The new Mac Hardware/Macs categorisation seems strange. Having the extra step of having to go to the "Macs" category after going to the "Mac Hardware" category seems unnecessary and could make hardware articles hard to find.
I think you're right. Maybe its worth bringing the main articles into Mac Hardware and keeping the G3-G5 Macs in a category called G3 to G5 Macs or something.
more...
Ish
Mar 10, 09:13 AM
D&^$ it all anyway JD! I was gonna do an apples and oranges for this one. Oh well, back to the drawing board.
Me too! :)
Macbook Pro keyboard!
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5175/5510770436_a24e5fc2de_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/59686301@N05/5510770436/)
I like this one! I tried that a while back but it wasn't as successful as yours. Maybe the keyboard would be better positioned not quite so close to the left hand edge imo. Well done though!
Same issue of lack of sun over here, too. I like the feel of this posed shot. I think it would be a bit stronger if the watch face were more visible. It's kind of hard to tell if the time is the same. Shooting this with something like a pocket watch on the sundial would be interesting, too. Similar shape but different "mechanisms".
Dale
I like the idea a lot. Great interpretation. I agree with Dale that an older style watch might make it an even stronger shot. Something a bit more classic with mechanical movement...though I do appreciate the contrast between the sundail and digital. I also wonder how a rectangular crop would look that brought us in closer to the sundail and the watch.
Apologies for not coming back earlier, and thank you for your suggestions and comments. I agree a pocket watch would look good. Less contrast but nicer photo. However, it's a moot point as I'm fresh out of pocket watches at the moment! :) I've been waiting for some sun and me being here to reshoot it. Had to do it from the other side as it was 2 pm before the opportunity arose and maybe the background isn't as good, also tried a lower viewpoint this time.
http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/8238/contrast2.jpg
Me too! :)
Macbook Pro keyboard!
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5175/5510770436_a24e5fc2de_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/59686301@N05/5510770436/)
I like this one! I tried that a while back but it wasn't as successful as yours. Maybe the keyboard would be better positioned not quite so close to the left hand edge imo. Well done though!
Same issue of lack of sun over here, too. I like the feel of this posed shot. I think it would be a bit stronger if the watch face were more visible. It's kind of hard to tell if the time is the same. Shooting this with something like a pocket watch on the sundial would be interesting, too. Similar shape but different "mechanisms".
Dale
I like the idea a lot. Great interpretation. I agree with Dale that an older style watch might make it an even stronger shot. Something a bit more classic with mechanical movement...though I do appreciate the contrast between the sundail and digital. I also wonder how a rectangular crop would look that brought us in closer to the sundail and the watch.
Apologies for not coming back earlier, and thank you for your suggestions and comments. I agree a pocket watch would look good. Less contrast but nicer photo. However, it's a moot point as I'm fresh out of pocket watches at the moment! :) I've been waiting for some sun and me being here to reshoot it. Had to do it from the other side as it was 2 pm before the opportunity arose and maybe the background isn't as good, also tried a lower viewpoint this time.
http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/8238/contrast2.jpg
tezro
Apr 30, 11:48 AM
3GB download. It's times like this I wish I lived in Hong Kong.
Why Hong Kong? I live in The Netherlands and got a 120Mbit/s download.
If the server is willing, I can download at 14MByte/s max.
Why Hong Kong? I live in The Netherlands and got a 120Mbit/s download.
If the server is willing, I can download at 14MByte/s max.
Mercer
Dec 18, 08:51 AM
God i hope RATM get number 1, i cant see it, i've just got a feeling that X Factor will win :mad::eek:
Bosunsfate
Nov 21, 04:47 PM
They work, buy passing a relativly large current 3-20 amps, depending on wattage. to draw heat from one side to another basically. one side is -10 degrees c. The other is +80 degrees c.
This hits what I think is their main hurdle...how do you get these numbers down.
A nearly 100C difference and the amps alone make this really a problem for basic consumer devices..
Now on an industrial scale...
This hits what I think is their main hurdle...how do you get these numbers down.
A nearly 100C difference and the amps alone make this really a problem for basic consumer devices..
Now on an industrial scale...
sebastianlewis
May 15, 09:13 PM
Good point.
Both of which are essential.
Btw Other proposals/suggestions are also welcome, however many or few posts you have :).
Thank You.
I'm not convinced yours will do this to be honest. Your categories don't seem totally clear to me.
I don't think they can be much clearer. Hardware refers to well, Hardware, Software to um... Software. Hmm, maybe I'm looking at it from the wrong perspective though, why don't you think it's clear?
Sebastian
Both of which are essential.
Btw Other proposals/suggestions are also welcome, however many or few posts you have :).
Thank You.
I'm not convinced yours will do this to be honest. Your categories don't seem totally clear to me.
I don't think they can be much clearer. Hardware refers to well, Hardware, Software to um... Software. Hmm, maybe I'm looking at it from the wrong perspective though, why don't you think it's clear?
Sebastian
Chundles
Oct 10, 10:35 AM
You know, today is tuesday.... :D
Nah, it's Wednesday.
Nah, it's Wednesday.
Concorde Rules
Apr 26, 05:19 AM
As for Mac App Store... meh... why not do downloads outside of the Mac App Store, I don't want to use that POS. I've been installing OSes from HTTP and FTP since the mid-90s, no need for a "Mac App Store" to do it. What happens if I don't have a 10.6 or 10.7 installation going and just want to wipe the computer ? Linux has been doing network installs from nothing. Upon purchase, just provide a USB thumb-drive image I can put on any 1 GB thumb-drive to boot into the installer where I put in my purchase code or something. No need for the "Mac App Store".
And the world is full of computer super users like us?
If they do it through the App Store it will be a download that you double click and it will either:
A. Make a partition it can book off (AKA restore partition - not a fan personally, i'd delete mine after installation if they did this).
B. Ask for a USB stick or DL-DVD to be written to to allow installation normally.
It will be a minimal click affair. Steps: Where do you want it installed from, enter your password, get a cup of tea.
Once that step is over it will continue as the DVD would one it has restarted.
And the world is full of computer super users like us?
If they do it through the App Store it will be a download that you double click and it will either:
A. Make a partition it can book off (AKA restore partition - not a fan personally, i'd delete mine after installation if they did this).
B. Ask for a USB stick or DL-DVD to be written to to allow installation normally.
It will be a minimal click affair. Steps: Where do you want it installed from, enter your password, get a cup of tea.
Once that step is over it will continue as the DVD would one it has restarted.
afd
Apr 22, 05:42 PM
1. Real men ride Harleys.
Don't real men drive Minis? Proper ones, not the BMW ones.
Don't real men drive Minis? Proper ones, not the BMW ones.
No comments:
Post a Comment