- wallpapers de navidad
- wallpaper navidad. La Navidad
- 50 wallpapers de navidad en HD
- Bastones de navidad
- Wallpapers de Navidad y Año
- Free Wallpapers Feliz Navidad
- de amor en navidad mot
- wallpapers hd navidad calidad
- inuyasha navidad
- pack de wallpapers navideños
- Wallpapers Navideños
- navidad Wallpaper
- Árbol de Navidad de colorines
- Bolas de navidad. Wallpaper
- Patricia-Navidad-Wallpaper-001
- fondos navideños wallpapers de
- /nuevos-fondos-de-navidad/
- Que tengan una feliz navidad
- Wallpaper 2| Holiday Dog
Old Muley
May 5, 11:06 AM
Move along citizens, nothing new to see here...
pika2000
Feb 24, 12:16 PM
Parents need to do their part, but government needs to try to protect from the greed that that brought us to the mess we are in today....
Oh sure, like the banks for example.... oh wait, the government actually gave them our tax money! :rolleyes:
Oh sure, like the banks for example.... oh wait, the government actually gave them our tax money! :rolleyes:
DISCOMUNICATION
Jun 14, 11:37 PM
Okay I'm finally going to buy one, but just gonna wait to see what's announced at the other press conferences. Already own a PS3 and a Wii. Hope the new 360 is RROD-proof.
Andronicus
Aug 19, 12:19 PM
You need the app to use places....
Well now I just feel stupid. . . .
Well now I just feel stupid. . . .
more...
thatisme
Mar 28, 02:36 PM
No you will not.
Edit: to clarify, if you take an EF 17-40mm and put it on a 60D, you will get the exact same field of view as an EF-S 17-55mm if both are set to 17mm.
Well, no, you will not. You are not using the FULL image circle on the EF lens on the 60D. Take that same EF 17-40 and put it on a 5D and your image will be composed differently. NOTE: the Lens has not changed it's focal length, but your image HAS changed.
The common misconception is that your field of view is what the CAMERA records. In actuality, it is what the LENS TRANSMITS to the camera. Since your 1.6 crop camera does not utilize the FULL lens image circle on an EF lens, it has the effect of zooming the transmitted image. SO your 17mm is not 17mm on a crop camera, it is the equivalent of a 27.2mm (28mm) EF-S lens. 17 x 1.6 = 27.2. On a 1D camera, that same 17mm is the equivalent of 22.1mm, where a 5D as a FULL FRAME camera is using the full image circle from the EF lens, so it is a true 17mm.
Edit: to clarify, if you take an EF 17-40mm and put it on a 60D, you will get the exact same field of view as an EF-S 17-55mm if both are set to 17mm.
Well, no, you will not. You are not using the FULL image circle on the EF lens on the 60D. Take that same EF 17-40 and put it on a 5D and your image will be composed differently. NOTE: the Lens has not changed it's focal length, but your image HAS changed.
The common misconception is that your field of view is what the CAMERA records. In actuality, it is what the LENS TRANSMITS to the camera. Since your 1.6 crop camera does not utilize the FULL lens image circle on an EF lens, it has the effect of zooming the transmitted image. SO your 17mm is not 17mm on a crop camera, it is the equivalent of a 27.2mm (28mm) EF-S lens. 17 x 1.6 = 27.2. On a 1D camera, that same 17mm is the equivalent of 22.1mm, where a 5D as a FULL FRAME camera is using the full image circle from the EF lens, so it is a true 17mm.
elfxmilhouse
Jan 6, 07:55 PM
can the new app play facebook videos?
i hate how you can see and click on the videos in the facebook app but it would just give you a message stating videos are not supported....THEN WHY DO YOU SHOW IT IN tHE FEED?!
i hate how you can see and click on the videos in the facebook app but it would just give you a message stating videos are not supported....THEN WHY DO YOU SHOW IT IN tHE FEED?!
more...
kainjow
Apr 18, 10:46 PM
Price check threads must be in the Marketplace forum.
TheNewDude
Apr 30, 01:52 PM
Really? I've been playing the beta for more than a month, and it's been phenomenal. Honestly, more than I expected. A problem can be some people aren't into RTS games, or they set their expectations too high for companies who are already raising the bar in gaming. The gameplay is amazing, the effects, the mass-army control, everything. I don't know why someone would say it's "ok." I downloaded the beta last night for Mac, and it does have performance issues compared to my Mac Pro running Windows 7 and SCII. That would be my only complain, other than that, pristine work.
So you'd recommend the PC version over the MAC??
So you'd recommend the PC version over the MAC??
more...
leekohler
Apr 12, 12:51 PM
If it is a private organization or club, they can do as they please.
.jpg "pack de wallpapers navideños")
ojobson
Mar 28, 08:22 AM
I guess this event will also see the launch of Lion and an updated iMac?
more...
DeSnousa
Apr 16, 08:37 AM
Every little bit helps. But what we really need is people with 8 cores plus (virtual, desktop machine) running bigadv, at least until faster GPU and/or a GPU client for mac.
Glad to hear from other users on the forum :)
We have lost more active users since I started this thread :( Come on every one, every bit helps. Hell if we had 1000 users folding 100 points a day that would go a long way, and for those who don't fold 100 points is not that hard for a modern computer :)
Glad to hear from other users on the forum :)
We have lost more active users since I started this thread :( Come on every one, every bit helps. Hell if we had 1000 users folding 100 points a day that would go a long way, and for those who don't fold 100 points is not that hard for a modern computer :)
MacCoaster
Sep 20, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by bond2
As the saying goes at Apple: "If you can't beat'em, dual'em"
I say whatever it takes to keep up. Doesn't bother me that there are two CPU's under the hood. Anyways I am sure that OS X is way more optimized for dual Processors than Windows 2000 or XP. Having OS X far outways the slight difference in hardware performance. OS X is specifically designed for Macs, and optimized to take full advantage of the hardware. No one that has a Dell, Compaq, Gateway...etc... can say the same thing about Windows. The only way that would happen is if Microsoft came out with a special Intel version of Windows or AMD version. Never gonna happen. I know most of you already know this but I just thought I'd throw it out there again.
Windows XP is optimized for both Intel Pentiums and AMD Athlons. You can include optimizations for both and they will be used as needed. Windows XP-64 is also compiled for IA-64 workstations. Apple might have beat Microsoft with the first consumer 32 bit OS, but Microsoft beat Apple with the first consumer 64 bit OS. You're speaking facts and not justifying them; please, next time at least justify yourself.
As the saying goes at Apple: "If you can't beat'em, dual'em"
I say whatever it takes to keep up. Doesn't bother me that there are two CPU's under the hood. Anyways I am sure that OS X is way more optimized for dual Processors than Windows 2000 or XP. Having OS X far outways the slight difference in hardware performance. OS X is specifically designed for Macs, and optimized to take full advantage of the hardware. No one that has a Dell, Compaq, Gateway...etc... can say the same thing about Windows. The only way that would happen is if Microsoft came out with a special Intel version of Windows or AMD version. Never gonna happen. I know most of you already know this but I just thought I'd throw it out there again.
Windows XP is optimized for both Intel Pentiums and AMD Athlons. You can include optimizations for both and they will be used as needed. Windows XP-64 is also compiled for IA-64 workstations. Apple might have beat Microsoft with the first consumer 32 bit OS, but Microsoft beat Apple with the first consumer 64 bit OS. You're speaking facts and not justifying them; please, next time at least justify yourself.
more...
KingYaba
Mar 15, 06:13 PM
Most of the foods I buy are domestically grown. I always look for the oranges from Southern Texas because those taste the best.
ColdZero
Sep 19, 11:27 PM
Oh yea, nice and fast :rolleyes:. A Dual 1.25Ghz G4 vs a single 2.8ghz P4, uhhh isn't that a little unfair. Where is the dual 2.4ghz P4 vs dual 1.25ghz G4 comparison?
more...
Laird Knox
May 2, 06:14 PM
It's pretty clear that the lens is in a deeper "well" in the white model. This is consistent with the rumor that light was impinging on the camera in the white model. What you need to do is limit all light that isn't coming from directly in front of the lens. No light from the side, and definitely no light from the inside of the camera. The way to fight it if you have an SLR? Invest in an old fashioned thing called a bellows, which shields the lens from any light that isn't coming from the area you can focus on, and which doesn't do anything but add glare or make blacks in the picture more like dark gray. This deeper camera acts like a bellows, I presume, blocking any light coming through the white, more translucent body.
Nice theory except that a bellows goes between the lens and the camera. I believe the item you are looking for is a lens shade. ;)
Nice theory except that a bellows goes between the lens and the camera. I believe the item you are looking for is a lens shade. ;)
.jpg "fondos navideños wallpapers de")
Angrist
Apr 12, 11:48 PM
I ordered Pages as soon as it was announced, and it immediately replaced Word as my primary word processing program.
I'm not sure what many other posters are thinking, because Word is FAR from the best application on my mac, it's closer to the worst. It tends to crash on my when saving, or pasting, or moving text (and it's not my install, three different computers all do the same thing).
Now for Pages, yes it was a little hard to get used to. I was constantly looking for a quick way of changing font styles and sizes, same thing with margins and headers and footers. But then I realised that I was ALWAYS making the same couple of changes. So I set up a blank document with the margins and tracking / numbering settings that I commonly use. Then made 4 new text styles and saved the document as a template.
Now I'm using a template that has all of my settings and favorite fonts / sizes / spacing easily accessible through one click on a style button. And since I did that, I havn't gone looking for a setting (other than for some image manip). Basically, what I'm trying to get at is this; if you found Pages UI to be hard to work with, just create some new paragraph styles and a document template for margins / global settings.
As far as bloat goes..... yes Pages does tend to slow down when there are lots of images hanging around, BUT I can't say that the slowdown is any worse than opening the same document in Word.
Overall it was a worthwhile purchase, but I'm still looking forward to future upgrades
I'm not sure what many other posters are thinking, because Word is FAR from the best application on my mac, it's closer to the worst. It tends to crash on my when saving, or pasting, or moving text (and it's not my install, three different computers all do the same thing).
Now for Pages, yes it was a little hard to get used to. I was constantly looking for a quick way of changing font styles and sizes, same thing with margins and headers and footers. But then I realised that I was ALWAYS making the same couple of changes. So I set up a blank document with the margins and tracking / numbering settings that I commonly use. Then made 4 new text styles and saved the document as a template.
Now I'm using a template that has all of my settings and favorite fonts / sizes / spacing easily accessible through one click on a style button. And since I did that, I havn't gone looking for a setting (other than for some image manip). Basically, what I'm trying to get at is this; if you found Pages UI to be hard to work with, just create some new paragraph styles and a document template for margins / global settings.
As far as bloat goes..... yes Pages does tend to slow down when there are lots of images hanging around, BUT I can't say that the slowdown is any worse than opening the same document in Word.
Overall it was a worthwhile purchase, but I'm still looking forward to future upgrades
more...
asphalt-proof
Oct 18, 08:09 AM
This was the funniest thing I've read all week.
I've been in insurance training, and in addition to financial people, there's been some, uh, "Desparate Housewives" getting their insurance licenses, and I'm picturing them passing around a poor phone and a bedazzler during class now. :eek:
I've been in insurance training, and in addition to financial people, there's been some, uh, "Desparate Housewives" getting their insurance licenses, and I'm picturing them passing around a poor phone and a bedazzler during class now. :eek:
bill4588
Oct 9, 04:34 PM
i dont know why walmart and target are making a fuss about the online movie store. they're like "it's going to cut into our sales!! waaaahhhhhh!!" they need to shut up. it's like they don't understand competitive advantage.
tarkeybear
Oct 9, 06:15 PM
I am a major Apple fan-boy but I haven't bought movies from iTunes for a couple reasons.
1) I like the special features on DVDs, and I doubt apple is offering alternate soundtracks, subtitles, director's comments, etc. with the Apple movie offerings.
2) My daughters like taking a DVD with them to their grandparents house. Unless we centralize Apple downloaded movies at my house and equip my kids with video iPods, the Apple movie sale solution is not a very portable option.
Don't get me wrong, one day I'll probably buy a movie from Apple, but at this time, I'll pay a $5-$10 premium for portability.
I do buy TV shows from iTunes, but I don't expect extra features with TV shows.
As other posters have have suggested, even if "Johnny Lunch-Pail" isn't interested in the benefits in physical media I list above, he probably won't have the bandwidth to download the movies at any reasonable speed. How much time does it take to save $5?
"Instant gratification" of iTunes movies is going to be painfully slow on most peeps DSL.
I'm surprised the folks at Target and Walmart haven't figured this out. Maybe the execs making all the fuss assume that their shoppers have the same high-end systems that they have?
I would assume any impact to DVD sales will be incremental, and T&W should be able to adjust their business model to this, adjusting retail space accordingly.
1) I like the special features on DVDs, and I doubt apple is offering alternate soundtracks, subtitles, director's comments, etc. with the Apple movie offerings.
2) My daughters like taking a DVD with them to their grandparents house. Unless we centralize Apple downloaded movies at my house and equip my kids with video iPods, the Apple movie sale solution is not a very portable option.
Don't get me wrong, one day I'll probably buy a movie from Apple, but at this time, I'll pay a $5-$10 premium for portability.
I do buy TV shows from iTunes, but I don't expect extra features with TV shows.
As other posters have have suggested, even if "Johnny Lunch-Pail" isn't interested in the benefits in physical media I list above, he probably won't have the bandwidth to download the movies at any reasonable speed. How much time does it take to save $5?
"Instant gratification" of iTunes movies is going to be painfully slow on most peeps DSL.
I'm surprised the folks at Target and Walmart haven't figured this out. Maybe the execs making all the fuss assume that their shoppers have the same high-end systems that they have?
I would assume any impact to DVD sales will be incremental, and T&W should be able to adjust their business model to this, adjusting retail space accordingly.
robbieduncan
Mar 28, 01:24 PM
EF-s lenses produce smaller image circles. So they are lighter (and cheaper) than a comparable EF lens would be. That's it.
Note the focal length is always the focal length. A 50mm lens still has a 50mm focal length on a 1.6 crop camera. It has a different effective field of view, but that's not the same thing.
Also note this has been going on forever: a 50mm lens on a medium format camera (obviously with a bigger image circle) as a different field of view that it does on a "full frame" camera.
EF-S 10-22mm is the same focal lens as a EF 16-24L lens, why produce a lens EF-S, when on a crop camera you could just add a EF 16-24mm L lens (other than cost).
None of this is true. The focal length does not change. The effective field of view (once again not the same thing) of the 10-22 is the same as a 16-35.2mm lens would be on a full frame camera. If you use the 16-24mm lens on a crop camera it will not have the same effective field of view as the 10-22.
Note the focal length is always the focal length. A 50mm lens still has a 50mm focal length on a 1.6 crop camera. It has a different effective field of view, but that's not the same thing.
Also note this has been going on forever: a 50mm lens on a medium format camera (obviously with a bigger image circle) as a different field of view that it does on a "full frame" camera.
EF-S 10-22mm is the same focal lens as a EF 16-24L lens, why produce a lens EF-S, when on a crop camera you could just add a EF 16-24mm L lens (other than cost).
None of this is true. The focal length does not change. The effective field of view (once again not the same thing) of the 10-22 is the same as a 16-35.2mm lens would be on a full frame camera. If you use the 16-24mm lens on a crop camera it will not have the same effective field of view as the 10-22.
mich73
Jul 10, 09:59 PM
I was planning on just stopping by tomorrow afternoon. I hope they have a White 16GB model left. I didn't think a line would form this early in Cool Springs.
I may have to rethink my plan. Keep posting and let us know how it goes!
I may have to rethink my plan. Keep posting and let us know how it goes!
gkarris
Mar 31, 01:32 PM
PilotWings is my biggest let down. There's nothing that 'bad' about it - it's just that it doesn't have the magic of past pilotwings.
This seems to be the demo title - is that because it's mearly a 3D version of Pilot Wings 64?
Seems to be the same as the N64 version when I was doing Free Flight on the Island.
Want to see what Starfox is like, though I heard it's also the same as the N64...
This seems to be the demo title - is that because it's mearly a 3D version of Pilot Wings 64?
Seems to be the same as the N64 version when I was doing Free Flight on the Island.
Want to see what Starfox is like, though I heard it's also the same as the N64...
3247
Jun 20, 07:11 AM
The standard file system of SDXC cards is exFat (http://www.sdcard.org/developers/tech/sdxc/capabilities/) -- so does this mean the Mini now supports exFat?
exFAT supports needs an Mac OS X update. Once Mac OS X is updated, older Macs will support SDXC cards, too. The older Macs won't support the higher speed, though.
SDXC actually contains two new features:
exFAT → requires new software (file system driver)
faster bus speed → requires new hardware (card reader)
SDHC has no built-in limit at 32 GB. It's an arbitrary limit imposed by the choice of FAT32 as the file system (which is arbitrarily limited to 32 GB by Microsoft).
exFAT supports needs an Mac OS X update. Once Mac OS X is updated, older Macs will support SDXC cards, too. The older Macs won't support the higher speed, though.
SDXC actually contains two new features:
exFAT → requires new software (file system driver)
faster bus speed → requires new hardware (card reader)
SDHC has no built-in limit at 32 GB. It's an arbitrary limit imposed by the choice of FAT32 as the file system (which is arbitrarily limited to 32 GB by Microsoft).
markjs
May 4, 06:35 AM
I am a confirmed PC user, you might call me a PC biggot because I will defend my PC preference to the death. Primarily I like the PC because of it's gaming ability, combined with internet access, and the fact I could afford it and am able to build and upgrade it myself cheaply while still buying high quality parts. My PC is a modest:
Athlon XP 1700+
ECS K7S5A Mainboard
512MB PC2100
SB Live Value
Onboard Lan
ATI Radeon 8500LE 64MB
Realtek PCI NIC
Western Digital 40GB and 20GB 7200RPM ATA 100 hard disks
Running Windows XP Professional Service pack 1
What I am getting at by this post, is why are Mac people so biggoted against the PC. Another guy made a post somewhere else about how maybe one in fifteen PC users is anti Mac, but more like one in two Mac users is anti PC. What can a Mac user do that I can't? I do audio and video editing on my PC, I can't think of anything a Mac can do my computer can't (and I'll wager I'll do anything cheaper, and being poor that's a serious consideration to me), and what is the big draw to the Mac. I realize this isn't the best forum for a two sided debate, but I am thowing it out there anyway.
Note: I really don't want to hear how Windows sucks, because the newest version is very easily useable and quite stable and I personally know at least one person who likes Windows XP as much as OSX and uses both regularly. Granted Win 98 was a steaming pile o' dog doo and so was ME, but since 2K Windows has been very viable. Another thing to consider is that Windows is written to work on hundreds....even thousands of hardware configurations, when Mac OS needs to work on maybe 10.....That itself aquits even Windows 95 rather nicely. Besides I can run Linux or other flavors of Unix on my PC should I choose. My inquiry is about the hardware....why do you love it so much it makes you hate PC's
PS I know two people who have switched from Mac personally, so it goes both ways.
Athlon XP 1700+
ECS K7S5A Mainboard
512MB PC2100
SB Live Value
Onboard Lan
ATI Radeon 8500LE 64MB
Realtek PCI NIC
Western Digital 40GB and 20GB 7200RPM ATA 100 hard disks
Running Windows XP Professional Service pack 1
What I am getting at by this post, is why are Mac people so biggoted against the PC. Another guy made a post somewhere else about how maybe one in fifteen PC users is anti Mac, but more like one in two Mac users is anti PC. What can a Mac user do that I can't? I do audio and video editing on my PC, I can't think of anything a Mac can do my computer can't (and I'll wager I'll do anything cheaper, and being poor that's a serious consideration to me), and what is the big draw to the Mac. I realize this isn't the best forum for a two sided debate, but I am thowing it out there anyway.
Note: I really don't want to hear how Windows sucks, because the newest version is very easily useable and quite stable and I personally know at least one person who likes Windows XP as much as OSX and uses both regularly. Granted Win 98 was a steaming pile o' dog doo and so was ME, but since 2K Windows has been very viable. Another thing to consider is that Windows is written to work on hundreds....even thousands of hardware configurations, when Mac OS needs to work on maybe 10.....That itself aquits even Windows 95 rather nicely. Besides I can run Linux or other flavors of Unix on my PC should I choose. My inquiry is about the hardware....why do you love it so much it makes you hate PC's
PS I know two people who have switched from Mac personally, so it goes both ways.
Post Title
→wallpaper de navidad
Post URL
→http://idephairstyles.blogspot.com/2011/06/wallpaper-de-navidad.html
Visit Idep Hairstyles for Daily Updated Idep Hairstyles
No comments:
Post a Comment