Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 01:32 PM
I'm very specific on what I praise Reagan for... including his excellent ability to speak eloquently about the values of the free market, small government, etc. I've repeatedly said that he was far from perfect... but it's less easy for you to argue with reality when you can just make up my positions on one man... isn't it?
Reagan was not about small government at all. He massively increased government spending and the size of the military. He may have spoken eloquently about small government, but they were empty words. There isn't much to praise there.
Speaking of making up positions, almost every post you make contains a micharacterization of what other people say, but phrased as a question so as to make it seem more innocent.
Reagan was not about small government at all. He massively increased government spending and the size of the military. He may have spoken eloquently about small government, but they were empty words. There isn't much to praise there.
Speaking of making up positions, almost every post you make contains a micharacterization of what other people say, but phrased as a question so as to make it seem more innocent.
Billy Boo Bob
Nov 28, 11:02 PM
1 Random artist finds inspiration and writes a song
2 Artist decides his song is so good that he/she records it in a professional studio (which he can rent) so the sound quality is superb
3 Artists logs into the iTMS and publishes his song
4 Artists gets $ from every song sold and the iTMS charges the artist for the distribution
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
2 Artist decides his song is so good that he/she records it in a professional studio (which he can rent) so the sound quality is superb
3 Artists logs into the iTMS and publishes his song
4 Artists gets $ from every song sold and the iTMS charges the artist for the distribution
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
gta50419
Mar 26, 10:51 AM
2) $129 is too much. This one cracks me up. Apple is bundling a $500 product into the OS?
what $500 product?
what $500 product?
Mr. Savage
Apr 7, 10:46 PM
That's nothin'. I remember shortly after the new MacBook Air was released at BB I was playin' around with the demos and was listening to an older man with his teenage daughter talking to the salesman about getting one. Then I noticed they ONLY had the more expensive versions (bigger SSDs) on the price cards. The old guy was oblivious about the different versions and the daughter was spoiled so he agreed to buy her one. When the sales-twerp went into the back to find one I pulled up the inventory right there on the demo model and showed the guy the cheaper model. When the sales-kid came back out the old guy asked him if they had the cheaper model in stock. The kid played dumb and pretended he didn't even know there was such a thing. I helpfully pointed out the one on the inventory screen and its "In Stock" status.
Long story short: kid acts surprised and confused, goes gets one and old guy buys his daughter a $1350 (instead of $1650) computer to update her facebook status with and thanks me for not minding my own business ;)
Long story short: kid acts surprised and confused, goes gets one and old guy buys his daughter a $1350 (instead of $1650) computer to update her facebook status with and thanks me for not minding my own business ;)
jmgregory1
Apr 6, 03:33 PM
The idea that Apple needs competitors to keep pushing forward with the iPad or any other product makes no sense. Apple brought the iPad, iPhone, iPod to market and it's the competition that is trying to catch up to Apple. By suggesting that Apple needs others to push forward with new designs/ideas is not giving Apple the credit they deserve for creating these markets (as we know them) in the first place.
Competition between tablets is going to potentially benefit the non-iPad tablets most - as they compete on specs, not the bigger picture ecosystem (because for those running android, there will be no ecosystem difference). BB's PB will have to fight for its own share of the non-Apple, non-Android market as will HP.
Competition between tablets is going to potentially benefit the non-iPad tablets most - as they compete on specs, not the bigger picture ecosystem (because for those running android, there will be no ecosystem difference). BB's PB will have to fight for its own share of the non-Apple, non-Android market as will HP.
guzhogi
Jul 20, 10:01 AM
Something I'd like to see is the framerate on Doom 3 if I played it on an 8-core Mac Pro w/ 2 of the fastest videocards in SLI/crossfire mode and one of those physics coprocessors (saying Doom 3 was optimized for it).
gorgeousninja
Apr 20, 09:40 AM
Don't let a few cherry picked pictures trick you, most Galaxy models don't look at all like an iPhone :
http://www.rogers.com/cms/images/en/Wireless/CellPhoneDetail/Banners/banner01_i896blkr.png
This one can go either way. Of course the Apple biased media are cherry picking their pictures. I'd doubt you'd have a hard time telling both devices apart in the real world with both in front of you.
Especially consdiring the Samsung doesn't use the icon grid on its homescreen at all, contrary to what the pictures are trying to show.
http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Screen-shot-2011-04-19-at-8.37.05-PM.png
feel free to point out how difficult it is to see any similarities...
http://www.rogers.com/cms/images/en/Wireless/CellPhoneDetail/Banners/banner01_i896blkr.png
This one can go either way. Of course the Apple biased media are cherry picking their pictures. I'd doubt you'd have a hard time telling both devices apart in the real world with both in front of you.
Especially consdiring the Samsung doesn't use the icon grid on its homescreen at all, contrary to what the pictures are trying to show.
http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Screen-shot-2011-04-19-at-8.37.05-PM.png
feel free to point out how difficult it is to see any similarities...
Raidersmojo
Jun 16, 05:33 PM
I work for radioshack and they were doing a nationwide release at the same time for iphone 4, because when we did the evo release, the east coast took all the phones before the west got anything.
this time they did a major release at 12:00 Central. totally screwed everyone since everyone waited for 1 to generate pins.
luckily, got two for customers, and four for myself (had my dad buy them)
two 32 Gigs and two 16's. I hope they come because our manager was talking about how potentially we might not get the phone.
this time they did a major release at 12:00 Central. totally screwed everyone since everyone waited for 1 to generate pins.
luckily, got two for customers, and four for myself (had my dad buy them)
two 32 Gigs and two 16's. I hope they come because our manager was talking about how potentially we might not get the phone.
samh004
Nov 28, 07:14 PM
I was under the assumption that the money paid to Universal was to allow the streaming of music from one device to another. I assumed that was the real reason behind the payment.
Seeing as Apple does not stream music to random devices, they shouldn't have to pay a royalty.
I don't think I voiced my opinion about this last time it was brought up, but I reckon although the iPod makes enough profit so as not to pass that royalty onto the consumer (in price), I would still feel like I was paying that royalty, were I to buy an iPod.
If I felt like I paid a royalty, and was already downloading songs legally from iTunes anyway, I'd want to download more stuff illegally than I have before, just to make use of that royalty.
That's what I will do if I have to buy an iPod in the future with a pre-paid royalty. You heard me... this tactic will only encourage more piracy. Stupid really !
Seeing as Apple does not stream music to random devices, they shouldn't have to pay a royalty.
I don't think I voiced my opinion about this last time it was brought up, but I reckon although the iPod makes enough profit so as not to pass that royalty onto the consumer (in price), I would still feel like I was paying that royalty, were I to buy an iPod.
If I felt like I paid a royalty, and was already downloading songs legally from iTunes anyway, I'd want to download more stuff illegally than I have before, just to make use of that royalty.
That's what I will do if I have to buy an iPod in the future with a pre-paid royalty. You heard me... this tactic will only encourage more piracy. Stupid really !
roadbloc
Apr 27, 08:49 AM
Oh well. It's not as if I get out much anyway...
http://i.imgur.com/SFDTG.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/SFDTG.jpg
layte
Mar 31, 03:58 PM
First, I have a Dell Streak. Wanted to see what the fuss was about. Took a year for the official Froyo release to appear. Yeah, fragmentation exists.
(I appreciate Android on the Streak, but GOOD GOD does it feel like a laggy piece of software compared to my iPhone and iPad. It has widgets and tons of convenient apps for pirating software or games (no... I own ALL those ROMS)... but I digress.)
So, Android unifies. Google forces handset/tablet manufacturers to adopt a stock OS interface. How will they differentiate themselves? What incentive, beyond a free OS, will there be to creating "phone B" that looks just like "phone A". This is where Google will shoot itself in the foot. The less the carriers and handset manufacturers can customize, the less incentive they have to launch on Android. Heck, just emulate Android if you want the apps, right RIM?
Weren't there waves a few weeks about about Motorola wanting its own OS? I'd want to control my own destiny. This is creating a "walled garden" (Andy as caretaker) for the device manufacturers/carriers, and they're the ones that Google needs to be pushing the platform.
The thing is, if handset manufacturers want to crap up a handset with their own gunk they are free to do so still. They will have to wait longer than has been the case (is there an echo in here?) but it is still possible. This isn't Google completely shutting off access, just them making things a bit harder (some will think this is a good thing, some wont).
Perhaps they can differentiate with hardware, or custom applications (just not anything that messes with the base OS by the looks of things). Horrible skins need to die a death, even hardcore fandroids would agree with that.
(I appreciate Android on the Streak, but GOOD GOD does it feel like a laggy piece of software compared to my iPhone and iPad. It has widgets and tons of convenient apps for pirating software or games (no... I own ALL those ROMS)... but I digress.)
So, Android unifies. Google forces handset/tablet manufacturers to adopt a stock OS interface. How will they differentiate themselves? What incentive, beyond a free OS, will there be to creating "phone B" that looks just like "phone A". This is where Google will shoot itself in the foot. The less the carriers and handset manufacturers can customize, the less incentive they have to launch on Android. Heck, just emulate Android if you want the apps, right RIM?
Weren't there waves a few weeks about about Motorola wanting its own OS? I'd want to control my own destiny. This is creating a "walled garden" (Andy as caretaker) for the device manufacturers/carriers, and they're the ones that Google needs to be pushing the platform.
The thing is, if handset manufacturers want to crap up a handset with their own gunk they are free to do so still. They will have to wait longer than has been the case (is there an echo in here?) but it is still possible. This isn't Google completely shutting off access, just them making things a bit harder (some will think this is a good thing, some wont).
Perhaps they can differentiate with hardware, or custom applications (just not anything that messes with the base OS by the looks of things). Horrible skins need to die a death, even hardcore fandroids would agree with that.
Luis Ortega
Apr 6, 02:59 PM
Really? Are sales numbers what dictates one product is better than the other?
I'm not saying the Xoom is better (I haven't used one) but a reading of the posts on this thread would suggest that sales number indicate that one product is better than the other.
In that case, Windows is obviously the best OS on the planet, by a magnitude of 10.
I'm not saying the Xoom is better (I haven't used one) but a reading of the posts on this thread would suggest that sales number indicate that one product is better than the other.
In that case, Windows is obviously the best OS on the planet, by a magnitude of 10.
hobi316
Jun 9, 02:15 PM
I just called a local store here in SC and this was pretty much all confirmed. His computer system was down, so he didn't have the info in front of him, but he said it would run pretty much like the EVO did, with a $50 downpayment for the pre-orders. Unfortunately he wasn't yet sure if all stores would be doing pre-orders or just the "in-stock" stores. I'll call back Monday to see if that store can get me a phone on the 24th, since it's close to my work. We'll see, I guess.
Whyren
Nov 28, 07:06 PM
Sounds like trying to get royalties off of blank CDs by selling "Music CD-Rs" at a higher cost.
Apple could just let them distribute Universal-branded "Music-Ready" iPods that are set at $50 more than any standard iPod. See how well that'll go for 'em.
Apple could just let them distribute Universal-branded "Music-Ready" iPods that are set at $50 more than any standard iPod. See how well that'll go for 'em.
CaoCao
Mar 1, 04:11 PM
You know how stupid that argument is? You are comparing physical defects to a different mental state. Physiologically, gay people are not any bit different from straight people. (IE one identical twin gay, one not cases...)
Here is a much closer analog to your view:
"I hate you for liking the color yellow. Your views are sick and your practice of having yellow things in your home is sick and wrong and immoral. A three thousand year old book written by some uneducated shepperds told me that people who like the color yellow are going to burn in Hell because someone hates them."
Do you see just how stupid this whole thing is?
Well my other options were paedophilia, incest, bestiality etc.
Your analogy does not make sense because I do not hate homosexuals.
I made it quite clearly. If you don't get it, I can't help you any further.
Good to hear. Can we now assume you support marriage rights for gay people?
You have made it quite clear you suffer from a dearth of cogency.
That is their problem, not yours.
You could say the same about the Catholic church. My link was specifically in reply to being asked for evidence - actually proof - that Plato was a homosexual. As for supporting bad stuff, the US Constitution was once quite content to support slavery and the subordination of women, and so were many of the founding fathers, both of the early church and the USA.
What absolute bollocks! Homosexuality does not need treatment, since it is not a disease.
Ah, let us define slavery, does: "slavery is the condition of involuntary servitude in which a human being is regarded as no more than the property of another, as being without basic human rights; in other words, as a thing rather than a person" work for you?
Why not? Whether gays are treated equally under the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with how you feel about them. Whether you grant them the human dignity of being treated equally has absolutely nothing to do with your Catholic dogma. You are making excuses.
Another red herring: nobody is asking you to be a caregiver, simply to stop pontificating about something you clearly know very little about. You are simply broadcasting your prejudices to no useful effect: you are not going to make anyone heterosexual by trashing their feelings and their very nature, you are just going to add to their discomfiture.
What a pity you did not learn from her to keep your own counsel.
Feeble. Do you pontificate about sky-diving too?
I have read many of Plato's dialogues, in Greek, and studied - and continue to study - Ancient Greek culture in depth. Your Dr Gould is bringing his own prejudices to the table. He should know better.
Homosexual friendship. Right.
But they are treated equal, any gay man can marry a woman and any lesbian woman can marry a man just as any heterosexual man can marry a woman and any heterosexual woman can marry a man
@CoCo & Bill: Please, just stop arguing with bogus reasons. The Catholic Church has everything wrong and upside down and only to control its followers. You two are a perfect example thereof.
CoCo, heterosexuality is not the norm, at least not outside our social understanding. In ancient Greece and Rome, sexuality wasn't even up for discussion. You followed a certain social conduct and explored your sexuality as you saw fit and didn't question it or that of others. When Christianity started taking over the laws and moral standards, they made it so they could control everything people do. Your reasoning comes from the same source as those who wrote the medical journals that condemn homosexuality as a mental illness. They did so out of fear of the unknown - the very essence th the Catholic Church uses to control its followers.
And Bill, please go out and live a little. Get a nice girlfriend and explore your and her sexuality a little and see how much more relaxed your attitude about the world can be. There's more to life than waiting for God's instructions. He certainly wouldn't want you to waste your life on such trivial things like analyzing other people's sexuality.
You two need to expand your world view and accept that there are plenty of things that make you uncomfortable, but there is no reason to condemn them so exhaustingly. You cannot reverse progress and you certainly cannot control the lives of other people.
There are plenty of folks in Northern Africa that can vouch for that.
Nay, the Romans and Greeks failed, they are retrogress
Here is a much closer analog to your view:
"I hate you for liking the color yellow. Your views are sick and your practice of having yellow things in your home is sick and wrong and immoral. A three thousand year old book written by some uneducated shepperds told me that people who like the color yellow are going to burn in Hell because someone hates them."
Do you see just how stupid this whole thing is?
Well my other options were paedophilia, incest, bestiality etc.
Your analogy does not make sense because I do not hate homosexuals.
I made it quite clearly. If you don't get it, I can't help you any further.
Good to hear. Can we now assume you support marriage rights for gay people?
You have made it quite clear you suffer from a dearth of cogency.
That is their problem, not yours.
You could say the same about the Catholic church. My link was specifically in reply to being asked for evidence - actually proof - that Plato was a homosexual. As for supporting bad stuff, the US Constitution was once quite content to support slavery and the subordination of women, and so were many of the founding fathers, both of the early church and the USA.
What absolute bollocks! Homosexuality does not need treatment, since it is not a disease.
Ah, let us define slavery, does: "slavery is the condition of involuntary servitude in which a human being is regarded as no more than the property of another, as being without basic human rights; in other words, as a thing rather than a person" work for you?
Why not? Whether gays are treated equally under the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with how you feel about them. Whether you grant them the human dignity of being treated equally has absolutely nothing to do with your Catholic dogma. You are making excuses.
Another red herring: nobody is asking you to be a caregiver, simply to stop pontificating about something you clearly know very little about. You are simply broadcasting your prejudices to no useful effect: you are not going to make anyone heterosexual by trashing their feelings and their very nature, you are just going to add to their discomfiture.
What a pity you did not learn from her to keep your own counsel.
Feeble. Do you pontificate about sky-diving too?
I have read many of Plato's dialogues, in Greek, and studied - and continue to study - Ancient Greek culture in depth. Your Dr Gould is bringing his own prejudices to the table. He should know better.
Homosexual friendship. Right.
But they are treated equal, any gay man can marry a woman and any lesbian woman can marry a man just as any heterosexual man can marry a woman and any heterosexual woman can marry a man
@CoCo & Bill: Please, just stop arguing with bogus reasons. The Catholic Church has everything wrong and upside down and only to control its followers. You two are a perfect example thereof.
CoCo, heterosexuality is not the norm, at least not outside our social understanding. In ancient Greece and Rome, sexuality wasn't even up for discussion. You followed a certain social conduct and explored your sexuality as you saw fit and didn't question it or that of others. When Christianity started taking over the laws and moral standards, they made it so they could control everything people do. Your reasoning comes from the same source as those who wrote the medical journals that condemn homosexuality as a mental illness. They did so out of fear of the unknown - the very essence th the Catholic Church uses to control its followers.
And Bill, please go out and live a little. Get a nice girlfriend and explore your and her sexuality a little and see how much more relaxed your attitude about the world can be. There's more to life than waiting for God's instructions. He certainly wouldn't want you to waste your life on such trivial things like analyzing other people's sexuality.
You two need to expand your world view and accept that there are plenty of things that make you uncomfortable, but there is no reason to condemn them so exhaustingly. You cannot reverse progress and you certainly cannot control the lives of other people.
There are plenty of folks in Northern Africa that can vouch for that.
Nay, the Romans and Greeks failed, they are retrogress
maelstromr
Apr 25, 02:33 PM
Honestly If this does not bug you it should Apple along with Law enforcement have know about this they have been using devices to read this info and use it against the Phones owners if the info proves useful. Good I totally support a lawsuit Apple should be embarrassed and ashamed this is a big deal. Nothing should trace where your going and keep a record. This info can also be used by criminals but the true criminal here is Law Enforcement since they knew about this info and used it against suspects.
Please take note suspects are not criminals they are you and me and getting pulled over or involved with the Police. It can happen to anyone for many reasons other than causing a crime.
Apple has just brought us the closest we have EVER been to 1984.
Protect our Freedoms
Rants are harder to read without punctuation.
Where'd you get the info on Apple and law enforcement? Little green men? Perhaps you tuned it in through your tinfoil cap?
Please take note suspects are not criminals they are you and me and getting pulled over or involved with the Police. It can happen to anyone for many reasons other than causing a crime.
Apple has just brought us the closest we have EVER been to 1984.
Protect our Freedoms
Rants are harder to read without punctuation.
Where'd you get the info on Apple and law enforcement? Little green men? Perhaps you tuned it in through your tinfoil cap?
Dark K
Jun 15, 04:03 PM
Same situation here, only guy that was pre ordering on my local RS, they couldn't enter the reservation, I talked to them and finally decided to come the 24th very early to get my phone without reserving it, I have to say that RS is a mess with reservation, I can't imagine if there were more people reserving today.
I am happy though, the town where I live, when it comes to apple stuff, it is ghost town, so I kinda bet that it will be me plus a maximum of 4 people atleast on launch day.
I am happy though, the town where I live, when it comes to apple stuff, it is ghost town, so I kinda bet that it will be me plus a maximum of 4 people atleast on launch day.
Silentwave
Aug 18, 10:21 AM
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/mac%20pro_081406100848/12798.png
I think this speaks for itself.
When I'm working on one project, that's all my attention to it. When I'd like to encode it, I'd like my however many cores to be at full blast. Sadly, that's not happening at the moment and will remain so until they rewrite h264 encoding.
Like I said, unless people are doing what you do (sending multiple files to be encoded at the same time all the time) they won't benefit from 4, 8, 100 cores.
Now if anyone can show benchmarks that show FCP being 40-50% faster on a quad than on a dual when working on a project, I'll shut up :)
Or maybe they have?
Didn't FCP just get updated to optimize it for the Mac Pro?
I think they need the latest version over there and should rerun the test.
I think this speaks for itself.
When I'm working on one project, that's all my attention to it. When I'd like to encode it, I'd like my however many cores to be at full blast. Sadly, that's not happening at the moment and will remain so until they rewrite h264 encoding.
Like I said, unless people are doing what you do (sending multiple files to be encoded at the same time all the time) they won't benefit from 4, 8, 100 cores.
Now if anyone can show benchmarks that show FCP being 40-50% faster on a quad than on a dual when working on a project, I'll shut up :)
Or maybe they have?
Didn't FCP just get updated to optimize it for the Mac Pro?
I think they need the latest version over there and should rerun the test.
AhmedFaisal
Apr 29, 05:49 AM
Step out of your little fairytale world and realize that we've have the same issues with a white Barack Obama. If Hillary was in office, she'd be getting raked over the coals just as hard. Similarly, if Allen West was president he'd be getting viciously attacked by the left. It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with policy. It has everything to do with reality. If tomorrow Barack Obama turned into a conservative constitutionalist aiming to reduce government involvement in our lives, reducing taxes, reducing deficits, etc. all these same 'RACISTS' as you so conveniently label them would be singing his praises.
Oh I see, and by questioning his birthplace you, Trump, Palin and your ilk are really criticizing his policies. Wow, again, you proved the old mantra, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.
Oh I see, and by questioning his birthplace you, Trump, Palin and your ilk are really criticizing his policies. Wow, again, you proved the old mantra, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.
raven13mb
Apr 5, 05:43 PM
Yeap, cause everything ends up on BluRay, no wait, it doesn't.
FCP is for editing, Motion is for graphics, Soundtrack Pro is for audio, Compressor is for encoding (even for BluRay) and Color is for grading.
If you need to author BluRay you use another tool.
Also there will be no training of the new software at NAB, why because NAB is almost over by Tuesday night. Most of the training will already have happened. And there is always a lot of training going on, there are classes to get certified, and certified instructors do not get advanced copies of the software.
Also I don't see Apple hijacking the SuperMeet, those guys would not screw all their long time sponsors for a one time apple thing. This event is huge, they have everything. Now there might be some re-shifting but as I said Tuesday is a long time to hold something through NAB. Apple used to have there own major event on Sunday mornings to unveil the newest FCP.
Nice post... I just wanted to add I always author Bluray using Final Cut. It might be bare-bones, but it does the job! 45 full length 2 hour long videos last year alone and not a single dissatisfied customer. It would be nice to do a little more in the way of authoring Blueray through Final Cut or DVDSP natively, but my only real hope is for 64 bit so the program can utilize the processing power of 8-core Macpros. I'm drooling over the idea of super-fast render times, exporting, etc. etc. etc.
HOPEFULLY they bundle and update for FCS for current registered pro users for $250 like the last release... which seems like an eternity ago!
FCP is for editing, Motion is for graphics, Soundtrack Pro is for audio, Compressor is for encoding (even for BluRay) and Color is for grading.
If you need to author BluRay you use another tool.
Also there will be no training of the new software at NAB, why because NAB is almost over by Tuesday night. Most of the training will already have happened. And there is always a lot of training going on, there are classes to get certified, and certified instructors do not get advanced copies of the software.
Also I don't see Apple hijacking the SuperMeet, those guys would not screw all their long time sponsors for a one time apple thing. This event is huge, they have everything. Now there might be some re-shifting but as I said Tuesday is a long time to hold something through NAB. Apple used to have there own major event on Sunday mornings to unveil the newest FCP.
Nice post... I just wanted to add I always author Bluray using Final Cut. It might be bare-bones, but it does the job! 45 full length 2 hour long videos last year alone and not a single dissatisfied customer. It would be nice to do a little more in the way of authoring Blueray through Final Cut or DVDSP natively, but my only real hope is for 64 bit so the program can utilize the processing power of 8-core Macpros. I'm drooling over the idea of super-fast render times, exporting, etc. etc. etc.
HOPEFULLY they bundle and update for FCS for current registered pro users for $250 like the last release... which seems like an eternity ago!
Fredrick
Apr 25, 04:46 PM
Hear we go again, who ever filed the law suit, get a life. Lifes not all about trying to make money out of others, enjoy the product for what it is. And not from what you can make out of it!, and if your worried about being tracked, then you must be doing something wrong!!!!
fastlane1588
Jul 30, 10:36 PM
why not just upgrade a new macpro w/ ur hard drives and all that stuff, and then just bootcamp into windows....ud have a pretty sweet pc if the mac pros have all the goodies that people keep saying they will have
NewbieNerd
Sep 13, 12:27 PM
Your IT guy can't even spell it correctly - so how do you expect him to have a clue?
Clovertown
I think we can all read at normal size. Besides, how do you know the IT dude typed that vs. the poster just typing what he said?
Clovertown
I think we can all read at normal size. Besides, how do you know the IT dude typed that vs. the poster just typing what he said?
Denarius
Mar 22, 07:24 PM
No he hasn't, the stage management has been quite subtle, actually, for once.
I had considered that theory, but when Cameron first broached a no-fly zone in parliament, Clinton's reaction seemed to be very put out when she initially put the dampers on the no-fly zone suggestion. If what you suggest is the case then, frankly, it's been done beautifully.
I think there's an argument for letting one of the partaking Arab nations run the show.
I had considered that theory, but when Cameron first broached a no-fly zone in parliament, Clinton's reaction seemed to be very put out when she initially put the dampers on the no-fly zone suggestion. If what you suggest is the case then, frankly, it's been done beautifully.
I think there's an argument for letting one of the partaking Arab nations run the show.
