- Axel great CGI but Dirty
- 44 magnum dirty harry.
- 44 magnum revolver.
- 44 magnum revolver.
- Samp;W .44 MAGNUM Model 29 Dirty Harry
- M29 Samp;W .44 Magnum
- But being as this is a .44
- 44 magnum revolver with scope.
- .44 Magnum,
- Dirty Harry Stencil
- Dirty Harry
- 44 magnum revolver smith and
- 44 magnum dirty harry.
- 44+magnum+pistol+revolver
- I watched #39;Dirty Harry#39; for
- We#39;re not talking Dirty
- to make Dirty Harry drool
- CLINT EASTWOOD as Harry
- Dirty Harry iPhone wallpaper
SmileyBlast!
Apr 11, 12:28 PM
They should stick to the June update each year. I know it may not be their fault but Apple need to keep the iPhone up to date, otherwise they will lose ground. Mobile phones are very competitive.
I definitely agree with this.
They need to keep their Market Share and Lead position with regular updates to the iPhone franchise.
I definitely agree with this.
They need to keep their Market Share and Lead position with regular updates to the iPhone franchise.
twoodcc
Aug 13, 10:36 PM
You originally said...
...which as I've said, a few times now, is incorrect. If you only count 4 games, as you originally said in that quote, that only totals 46M. And besides, if you check that link I originally provided, which is FROM POLYPHONY THEMSELVES, you would see that the total worldwide is only 56M. At least if you're going to quote the number in the wrong context, use the right number.
well i did have demos just before that quote. but yes, what i meant to say, and what i actually typed, was two different things. but i think you can see what i was trying to say, and is clear: NFS has sold more, but has more games out there.
Yay, let's play the "Twist The Numbers To Fit Our Needs" game....
100M / 15 years = 6.66M per year (Need for Speed)
56M / 13 years = 4.31M per year (Gran Turismo)
So yea, Need for Speed sells 50% more per year. YAY, math is fun!!!
math is fun, and yes, per year, NFS has sold more. but they released more games to do it. and on more consoles, to break it down even further
It is. I don't like the direction Polyphony has taken the game. A game that used to be my favorite game. It disappoints me. Thus my frustration. I bought my PS3 with the hopes
did you buy GT5: prologue?
for someone who at one point really liked the games/series, i don't see why you wouldn't give this game a shot, at least after reading reviews first. i find it very frustrating to see people make judgements before the game is even out
Can I buy one and drive it to work? No? Then it isn't real, intentions or not.
no matter what anyone says, it is a fact that they intended to build a car specifically for Gran Turismo. that in itself is very impressive to me.
Then according to you, Wii Play is the "greatest" video game of all time. Just reading that sentence should show you exactly why sales have very little to do with the quality of a game.
i never said that the most sold game is the greatest. but i do think sales is one aspect to consider.
I keep saying this, but it seems people don't really understand it. Sales, which deal with numbers, are an objective measure of something. Greatness, which deals with personal preferences, is a subjective measure. You can think GT, or the iPhone, or Star Wars, or whatever, is great. That is fine, and a personal opinion. But, the sales of those things can't be "great". They can be large, and they are, but they can't be great.
i understand this, but i don't think you understand what i am trying to point out. you are correct in that what makes something great is personal preference, and when many people have that same personal preference, it turns into many sales.
let's try this analogy. take tennis for example. who is a "greater" player - Roger Federer or Andy Roddick? Roddick has played some great games, and has a great serve, but Federer has many more championships. almost everyone would say Federer is greater (if there is such a term).
think of championships as sales in this case. i know it's not the best analogy, but the first thing i could think of.
And really, if someone uses the sales of something to qualify the greatness of it to themselves, that is kind of sad. Quite a few of my favorite things, which I consider great, didn't sell very well. That doesn't make them any less great to me.
you do make a very good point here, but again, i think you are taking my point out of context.
my whole point in all of this, is not that i think GT is the greatest series of all time or whatever, or that they have sold the most, blah blah. all i'm trying to say is that they have a very respectable racing series, one of the best, and i think this next game will continue their success. and i pointed out that past sales show that they have had much success. that's all i'm really saying here
But anyway, I don't even know why I'm arguing about this. I'm not even going to be buying this game. I'm done with this thread now. I'll just tip my hat, and bid you adieu.
it seems we are arguing just to argue. i hope you at least read some reviews once the game is out before making a choice like that. and i also hope that this thread hasn't led you to that decision
It's refreshing that I don't have to go to gamespot forums to see a pointless immature fanboy pissing match :rolleyes:
sorry for the inconvenience. you don't have to read this you know.
...which as I've said, a few times now, is incorrect. If you only count 4 games, as you originally said in that quote, that only totals 46M. And besides, if you check that link I originally provided, which is FROM POLYPHONY THEMSELVES, you would see that the total worldwide is only 56M. At least if you're going to quote the number in the wrong context, use the right number.
well i did have demos just before that quote. but yes, what i meant to say, and what i actually typed, was two different things. but i think you can see what i was trying to say, and is clear: NFS has sold more, but has more games out there.
Yay, let's play the "Twist The Numbers To Fit Our Needs" game....
100M / 15 years = 6.66M per year (Need for Speed)
56M / 13 years = 4.31M per year (Gran Turismo)
So yea, Need for Speed sells 50% more per year. YAY, math is fun!!!
math is fun, and yes, per year, NFS has sold more. but they released more games to do it. and on more consoles, to break it down even further
It is. I don't like the direction Polyphony has taken the game. A game that used to be my favorite game. It disappoints me. Thus my frustration. I bought my PS3 with the hopes
did you buy GT5: prologue?
for someone who at one point really liked the games/series, i don't see why you wouldn't give this game a shot, at least after reading reviews first. i find it very frustrating to see people make judgements before the game is even out
Can I buy one and drive it to work? No? Then it isn't real, intentions or not.
no matter what anyone says, it is a fact that they intended to build a car specifically for Gran Turismo. that in itself is very impressive to me.
Then according to you, Wii Play is the "greatest" video game of all time. Just reading that sentence should show you exactly why sales have very little to do with the quality of a game.
i never said that the most sold game is the greatest. but i do think sales is one aspect to consider.
I keep saying this, but it seems people don't really understand it. Sales, which deal with numbers, are an objective measure of something. Greatness, which deals with personal preferences, is a subjective measure. You can think GT, or the iPhone, or Star Wars, or whatever, is great. That is fine, and a personal opinion. But, the sales of those things can't be "great". They can be large, and they are, but they can't be great.
i understand this, but i don't think you understand what i am trying to point out. you are correct in that what makes something great is personal preference, and when many people have that same personal preference, it turns into many sales.
let's try this analogy. take tennis for example. who is a "greater" player - Roger Federer or Andy Roddick? Roddick has played some great games, and has a great serve, but Federer has many more championships. almost everyone would say Federer is greater (if there is such a term).
think of championships as sales in this case. i know it's not the best analogy, but the first thing i could think of.
And really, if someone uses the sales of something to qualify the greatness of it to themselves, that is kind of sad. Quite a few of my favorite things, which I consider great, didn't sell very well. That doesn't make them any less great to me.
you do make a very good point here, but again, i think you are taking my point out of context.
my whole point in all of this, is not that i think GT is the greatest series of all time or whatever, or that they have sold the most, blah blah. all i'm trying to say is that they have a very respectable racing series, one of the best, and i think this next game will continue their success. and i pointed out that past sales show that they have had much success. that's all i'm really saying here
But anyway, I don't even know why I'm arguing about this. I'm not even going to be buying this game. I'm done with this thread now. I'll just tip my hat, and bid you adieu.
it seems we are arguing just to argue. i hope you at least read some reviews once the game is out before making a choice like that. and i also hope that this thread hasn't led you to that decision
It's refreshing that I don't have to go to gamespot forums to see a pointless immature fanboy pissing match :rolleyes:
sorry for the inconvenience. you don't have to read this you know.
jmbear
Nov 29, 12:39 PM
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 internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
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..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
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..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
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.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. 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.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
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..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
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..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
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.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. 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.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
Bosunsfate
Aug 5, 04:44 PM
I'm sure it will have a sensor on the computer... but as an added selling point, a second sensor on the Apple display... so you can put your computer under your desk and still use Front Row.
I agree. You'll have multiple options either way.
I think the really big display update, would be just that. A 40" or 50" monitor.:rolleyes:
I agree. You'll have multiple options either way.
I think the really big display update, would be just that. A 40" or 50" monitor.:rolleyes:
ergle2
Sep 13, 01:00 PM
So Merom(Merom Santa Rosa)/Conroe/Woodcrest(Clovertown) are the end of the road of separate chips. No more mobile/desktop/sever chip... all are the same (should expect mobiles to have the lowest MHz, then desktop, then toping out with server)
I think you've misunderstood.
Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest are one microarch now. That's Intel's point -- the core is essentially the same. Then they package as appropriate for a given market. Merom is lower-voltage/lower-clockspeed, Woodcrest has the external pins for multi-processor exposed and has a higher FSB, etc.
There will still be different chips for different markets, but the arch is the same across the board. This is a significant difference from the Pentium-4/Pentium-M days, where the arch was very, very different.
The other big difference is the support chipsets -- the Xeon range use a different chipset that supports FBDIMM vs DDR2 for the Core 2 branded chips. This is the reason Intel kept the memory controller off the CPU die, so that they had more flexibility with memory types.
I think you've misunderstood.
Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest are one microarch now. That's Intel's point -- the core is essentially the same. Then they package as appropriate for a given market. Merom is lower-voltage/lower-clockspeed, Woodcrest has the external pins for multi-processor exposed and has a higher FSB, etc.
There will still be different chips for different markets, but the arch is the same across the board. This is a significant difference from the Pentium-4/Pentium-M days, where the arch was very, very different.
The other big difference is the support chipsets -- the Xeon range use a different chipset that supports FBDIMM vs DDR2 for the Core 2 branded chips. This is the reason Intel kept the memory controller off the CPU die, so that they had more flexibility with memory types.
pubwvj
Mar 31, 05:07 PM
Android is the next windows. So many drivers, so much requirements, so many configurations, so little memory. Fortunately Apple's provided a better sandbox.
~Shard~
Jul 14, 03:05 PM
Power Supply at the top is REALLY stupid.
I've never thought much of the relevance of its placement myself - why do you say that? Care to elaborate on why it is "REALLY stupid"?
I've never thought much of the relevance of its placement myself - why do you say that? Care to elaborate on why it is "REALLY stupid"?
yg17
Apr 27, 08:45 AM
And now Trump is demanding to see Obama's educational records. It's not going to end. If Obama releases those, then what will Trump demand?
When this whole birther bullcrap started back before the election, I said that if he ever releases the long form, they'll claim it's fake and then demand more proof. Looks like I'm right.
When this whole birther bullcrap started back before the election, I said that if he ever releases the long form, they'll claim it's fake and then demand more proof. Looks like I'm right.
Simiber
Apr 25, 01:54 PM
I'm not from the US so if someone with some legal background over there could point out to me how this would work..? Where I'm from you have to have suffered damages in order to sue someone, otherwise a government regulator would just impose a fine on the company or require them to stop what they are doing..? How have these people (who are suing apple) suffered losses as a result of this apparent spying technology..?
citizenzen
Mar 22, 11:00 AM
Oh yeah... and here's a fun little nugget for those who like to tout Obama's coalition:
I'm confused. :confused:
What point is 5P trying to make here?
Is the fact that one list contains more countries by count make it superior to the second? Is that the only way to judge a coalition, by count?
That seems a little too simplistic to me.
For instance, I added up these two lists (after removing duplicates) according to how much the countries spend on their military ...
• Coalition Countries - Iraq - 2003 ~ 152 billion
• Coalition - Libya - 2011 ~ 179 billion
I guess it's just how you want to look at it. :cool:
I'm confused. :confused:
What point is 5P trying to make here?
Is the fact that one list contains more countries by count make it superior to the second? Is that the only way to judge a coalition, by count?
That seems a little too simplistic to me.
For instance, I added up these two lists (after removing duplicates) according to how much the countries spend on their military ...
• Coalition Countries - Iraq - 2003 ~ 152 billion
• Coalition - Libya - 2011 ~ 179 billion
I guess it's just how you want to look at it. :cool:
Foxglove9
Jul 14, 02:52 PM
If those specs are real then I'm glad I didn't hold out for the Mac Pro and bought a used G5 a few months ago. Dual optical drive slots are nice but for me not necessary.
braddouglass
Apr 6, 02:48 PM
That is highly limited thinking. It might be time to open your mind and learn how and why other people might actually want a particular feature rather than assume that they are the person who is limited.
I, and many others, use our computers for way more than typing.
A simple example is when I use my MBPro on stage with any number of apps for musical performances.
Also the sound engineers use MBPro for audio cues,audio mixing, recording, effects processing. The lighting guys use them.
When you are heavily involved in multitasking you need to be able to see something, identify it and use it, all within a fraction of a second. You are not sitting there touch typing.
THANK YOU!!!!! That's precisely why I need A back light and no one will understand haha but you get it my friend.
I, and many others, use our computers for way more than typing.
A simple example is when I use my MBPro on stage with any number of apps for musical performances.
Also the sound engineers use MBPro for audio cues,audio mixing, recording, effects processing. The lighting guys use them.
When you are heavily involved in multitasking you need to be able to see something, identify it and use it, all within a fraction of a second. You are not sitting there touch typing.
THANK YOU!!!!! That's precisely why I need A back light and no one will understand haha but you get it my friend.
H. Flower
Apr 7, 11:03 PM
All right then, here we are.
This better be good. Or back to AVID, or on to Premiere.
This better be good. Or back to AVID, or on to Premiere.
Amazing Iceman
Mar 22, 10:31 PM
Microsoft Office 2007 (Windows) and 2011 (Mac) are not slow.
They may be slow in your super �ber Mac from which uses the super �ber Core 2 Duo, but it's certainly not in my sister's Core i3 notebook.
Your machine is outdated. I hope you're not using it as a reference to judge Microsoft Office performance.
Are you having PMS (no offense to the ladies) or something like that?
I didn't say it ran slow on my MAC. Even FCP and CS5 run great. Otherwise I would have already purchased a new one. Unlike you, I can afford it. I'm going to buy the new 17" MBP, but because it has issues I decided to wait until these get solved, but that's not your business.
Also, your ignorance and arrogance didn't let you understand my point. Every new version of Office, specially the Windows version, requires a bigger and faster computer to run. And when you compare features, there's no real gain from one version to the next, just nice looking colors and animations, which are a waste of processor speed.
Go learn some manners, and mature at least a little. Idiots like you shouldn't be allowed in these forums.
They may be slow in your super �ber Mac from which uses the super �ber Core 2 Duo, but it's certainly not in my sister's Core i3 notebook.
Your machine is outdated. I hope you're not using it as a reference to judge Microsoft Office performance.
Are you having PMS (no offense to the ladies) or something like that?
I didn't say it ran slow on my MAC. Even FCP and CS5 run great. Otherwise I would have already purchased a new one. Unlike you, I can afford it. I'm going to buy the new 17" MBP, but because it has issues I decided to wait until these get solved, but that's not your business.
Also, your ignorance and arrogance didn't let you understand my point. Every new version of Office, specially the Windows version, requires a bigger and faster computer to run. And when you compare features, there's no real gain from one version to the next, just nice looking colors and animations, which are a waste of processor speed.
Go learn some manners, and mature at least a little. Idiots like you shouldn't be allowed in these forums.
Eidorian
Jul 27, 10:12 AM
i cant wait to do this to my mac mini. i bought the core solo with the intention of upgrading the chip myself (once i heard core 2 was pin to pin compatible) but my question now is does anyone know if the version shipping is still pin to pin compatible???!?!?!http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom
M-O
Apr 25, 01:35 PM
wow, this has officially been blown out of proportion!
gugy
Aug 6, 01:48 PM
"The Name Mac Pro is our Trademark, not Apple's"
good luck for you.
I would not put up a fight against a giant like Apple.
Plus, I don't see having a computer named Mac Pro would interfere with your business in a bad way. Actually, I think it would be good thing for you.
good luck for you.
I would not put up a fight against a giant like Apple.
Plus, I don't see having a computer named Mac Pro would interfere with your business in a bad way. Actually, I think it would be good thing for you.
Hellhammer
Apr 6, 11:46 AM
So is that also true for the difference between SV and LV? If that is the case, the Core i7-2649M you cite above (2.3 LV chip) should be faster compared to the 2.3 i5 in the low end Pro 13?
Thanks!
It would be about as fast. The IGP is 150MHz slower though so graphics wise it would be slightly slower. chrmjenkins explained some smaller details but in terms of performance, i7-2649M should be similar to i5-2520M.
Sure clock speed isn't everything. But you better go read up some more on Tue Intel HD3000 IGP. You're using facts from the STD voltage SB IGP and applying them to the ULV SB IGP. Go read about the graphics on the Samsung Series 9 laptops. The 13" model uses this very chip cited. It shows greater than a 50% drop in graphics performance from the 320m to ULV IGP used in SB.
This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.
Remember that those are numbers under Windows. Anand mentioned in his 2011 MBP review that Intel HD 3000 has brilliant drivers in OS X, and in general it beat the 320M in OS X too. In Windows it got badly beaten by 320M. Sure the LV and especially ULV IGP will be slower than 320M, even in OS X but it may not be as bad as 50% drop.
Thanks!
It would be about as fast. The IGP is 150MHz slower though so graphics wise it would be slightly slower. chrmjenkins explained some smaller details but in terms of performance, i7-2649M should be similar to i5-2520M.
Sure clock speed isn't everything. But you better go read up some more on Tue Intel HD3000 IGP. You're using facts from the STD voltage SB IGP and applying them to the ULV SB IGP. Go read about the graphics on the Samsung Series 9 laptops. The 13" model uses this very chip cited. It shows greater than a 50% drop in graphics performance from the 320m to ULV IGP used in SB.
This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.
Remember that those are numbers under Windows. Anand mentioned in his 2011 MBP review that Intel HD 3000 has brilliant drivers in OS X, and in general it beat the 320M in OS X too. In Windows it got badly beaten by 320M. Sure the LV and especially ULV IGP will be slower than 320M, even in OS X but it may not be as bad as 50% drop.
cjoy
Apr 25, 02:37 PM
Since they do not collect this data, Apple is NOT tracking you.
Do you know this for certain?
As far as I'm concerned, I am pretty sure apple does track this information. Why else force everyone that wants to use apples devices to agree to this in their TOU?
Do you know this for certain?
As far as I'm concerned, I am pretty sure apple does track this information. Why else force everyone that wants to use apples devices to agree to this in their TOU?
Bill McEnaney
Mar 3, 10:05 AM
And I don't see the point in being sexually attracted to anyone of the opposite sex, but since society tells me it's "normal" I live with it nonetheless. It's all a matter of perception and experience. You have yours, I have mine and they're both normal to us.
Sure, different people have different experiences. That's partly why some people feel same-sex attractions and why others feel opposite-sex attractions. Macaroony doesn't see any point in opposite-sex attractions. I don't see any point in same-sex attractions. Here are two videos that explain what I believe about why some people feel same-sex attractions. I think the speaker works for NARTH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAJXvxcGrk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UziWSdC8Zhw&feature=related
Pedophilia is immoral - no matter man or woman. Please do not put both homosexuality and pedophilia into the same boat. There are plenty of grown men who abuse underage girls, it's when they happen to be gay that elevates the problem and lazily ties it to homosexuality.
Just as no one chooses to feel same-sex attractions, no one chooses to be a pedophile. I know some pedophiles. But some pedophiles do choose to molest children. I don't want to conflate pedophilia and immoral actions that some pedophiles do because they're pedophiles.
Many people ignore the difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. Many Christians insist that homosexuality is immoral. But homosexuality is a property, not an action. Nor is it a sin of omission. Homosexuality the property is morally indifferent. Homosexual acts are, I think, immoral. An action can be immoral, even if someone doesn't deserve any blame for doing it.
No, I shouldn't put homosexuality and pedophilia in the same boat. I mentioned the Catholic Church's homosexual-abuse because skunk seems to think my opinions about sexual morality are feelings, not beliefs that are either true or false. Even psychotherapists I've talked with have agreed that feelings are neither truths nor falsehoods. Feelings are neither of those, but there are truths about feelings and there are falsehoods about them. If I only feel that homosexual acts are immoral, should some government outlaw feeling that way?
The phrase "a fact" is ambiguous. It can mean "a truth." It can also mean "a set of actual set of circumstances." There are truths about feelings, and there are feelings about truths. But my feelings aren't truths. Even if moral relativism is true, there are still objective truths about whether some society or other considers some action morally acceptable. And some relativists still hold a self-inconsistent belief when they believe that since every belief is relative to some context or other, there's no such thing as absolute truth. In one sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true about every context. In that sense of the phrase "absolute truth," I imply a self-contradiction myself when I say that since every truth is relative to some context or other, I imply that it's an absolute truth that there's no absolute truth.
In another sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true whether anyone believes it or not. Even if I'm mistaken when I believe that homosexual sex is gravely immoral, it's still true that either they're moral or not moral.
Too often, people who feel same-sex attractions suffer needlessly partly because they, others, or both ignore important distinctions. Unfortunately, people often ignore them when their feelings determine too much of what those people believe.
Immoral behavior continues partly because of moral relativism. Instead of conforming our minds to reality, we try to conform reality to our minds. Moral relativists talk as though an action is moral if and only if someone believes that it's moral. Some moral relativists even insist that if you believe that homosexual acts are morally acceptable, and I believe they're immoral, then we're both right. A moral relativist might say the same about the morality or immorality of gay-bashing. But someone is right when he thinks that gay-bashing is morally right, should a court punish him for gay-bashing someone?
Sure, different people have different experiences. That's partly why some people feel same-sex attractions and why others feel opposite-sex attractions. Macaroony doesn't see any point in opposite-sex attractions. I don't see any point in same-sex attractions. Here are two videos that explain what I believe about why some people feel same-sex attractions. I think the speaker works for NARTH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAJXvxcGrk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UziWSdC8Zhw&feature=related
Pedophilia is immoral - no matter man or woman. Please do not put both homosexuality and pedophilia into the same boat. There are plenty of grown men who abuse underage girls, it's when they happen to be gay that elevates the problem and lazily ties it to homosexuality.
Just as no one chooses to feel same-sex attractions, no one chooses to be a pedophile. I know some pedophiles. But some pedophiles do choose to molest children. I don't want to conflate pedophilia and immoral actions that some pedophiles do because they're pedophiles.
Many people ignore the difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. Many Christians insist that homosexuality is immoral. But homosexuality is a property, not an action. Nor is it a sin of omission. Homosexuality the property is morally indifferent. Homosexual acts are, I think, immoral. An action can be immoral, even if someone doesn't deserve any blame for doing it.
No, I shouldn't put homosexuality and pedophilia in the same boat. I mentioned the Catholic Church's homosexual-abuse because skunk seems to think my opinions about sexual morality are feelings, not beliefs that are either true or false. Even psychotherapists I've talked with have agreed that feelings are neither truths nor falsehoods. Feelings are neither of those, but there are truths about feelings and there are falsehoods about them. If I only feel that homosexual acts are immoral, should some government outlaw feeling that way?
The phrase "a fact" is ambiguous. It can mean "a truth." It can also mean "a set of actual set of circumstances." There are truths about feelings, and there are feelings about truths. But my feelings aren't truths. Even if moral relativism is true, there are still objective truths about whether some society or other considers some action morally acceptable. And some relativists still hold a self-inconsistent belief when they believe that since every belief is relative to some context or other, there's no such thing as absolute truth. In one sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true about every context. In that sense of the phrase "absolute truth," I imply a self-contradiction myself when I say that since every truth is relative to some context or other, I imply that it's an absolute truth that there's no absolute truth.
In another sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true whether anyone believes it or not. Even if I'm mistaken when I believe that homosexual sex is gravely immoral, it's still true that either they're moral or not moral.
Too often, people who feel same-sex attractions suffer needlessly partly because they, others, or both ignore important distinctions. Unfortunately, people often ignore them when their feelings determine too much of what those people believe.
Immoral behavior continues partly because of moral relativism. Instead of conforming our minds to reality, we try to conform reality to our minds. Moral relativists talk as though an action is moral if and only if someone believes that it's moral. Some moral relativists even insist that if you believe that homosexual acts are morally acceptable, and I believe they're immoral, then we're both right. A moral relativist might say the same about the morality or immorality of gay-bashing. But someone is right when he thinks that gay-bashing is morally right, should a court punish him for gay-bashing someone?
pkson
Apr 5, 11:43 PM
I wonder if they're gonna add (slightly useless) stuff from iMovie like face recognition (It's a great idea, but it takes too long to go through all the clips..)
I hope FCP is just awesome beyond comprehension.
I hope FCP is just awesome beyond comprehension.
leekohler
Apr 28, 09:58 AM
You accuse every 'liberal' in this forum of being blinded by their bias. I suppose all of the 'conservatives' see clearly and are willing to consider all reasonable alternatives. Lol. And then the debate becomes what is reasonable? :p
If he can't stand the heat, he knows where the kitchen door is.
If he can't stand the heat, he knows where the kitchen door is.
ptysell
Apr 25, 02:24 PM
This is why we need loser pays in the United States.
Abstract
Aug 12, 01:35 AM
What OS will the iPhone be running? :confused:
Mac OS Kitten.
Mac OS Kitten.
Post Title
→44 magnum revolver dirty harry
Post URL
→https://idephairstyles.blogspot.com/2011/06/44-magnum-revolver-dirty-harry.html
Visit Idep Hairstyles for Daily Updated Idep Hairstyles
No comments:
Post a Comment