hipsigti
Jan 28, 06:02 AM
I read somewhere awhile back that this same technology was in passports and and licenses and was very easy to read the information and hack in to the chip with some sort of device you can purchase or make from your local radio shack like a frequency scan tool like back in the old days with car alarms with code hopping technology! interesting video check out the whole vid the rfid part starts at 6:20sec. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo
wrldwzrd89
Apr 2, 02:04 PM
I don't think Pages is horrible. It's not great, but it isn't quite as bad for me as everyone else finds it. I don't use it all that much (Keynote gets used far more than Pages does).
david77
Mar 13, 02:36 PM
Not fine for me. I've tried resetting multiple times. Nothing works.
MacManiac1224
Sep 13, 04:23 PM
Can the G4 beat the Pentium 5? You are probably scratching your heads on this one. Yep, the Pentium 5 is very real, and it is coming soon. 2nd quarter of the Pentium 5 debuting at 3.2GHZ is going to come out. It will have 100 million transistors on it and it will be manufactured at .09 microns. Also, here is the doozy, it will have 1 mb of L2 on die cache, and it will support 333mhz bus speeds, with the addition of DDR, that is a possible 667mhz bus speeds. By the way, if you were wondering, the Pentium 4 has 42 million transistors.
Now, for the G4: I am not sure how many transistors the G4 has, but I imagine it is way less then 100 million, or even 42 million, considering the P4 came out after the G4. Anyway, the cache on the G4 is higher on the high-end, 2mb of cache. But: the speed: 1.25Ghz? Can that really stand up to a P5 with 333mhz bus, and 3.2Ghz clock speeds? My opinion: most likely not.
Let's be honest, the P4 basically can beat the G4 in most tasks today, so a new faster version of the P4, the P5 can easily beat the G4, most likely in 95-99% of all tasks.
Ok, we have established that the G4 is, well, to slow against the P5, even though we don't know about it yet, I imagine it will be. Well, Apple just pulled the plug on OS 9 for January, what could this mean? I am not sure, only Steve knows. But Apple better come out with something that can at least compete with the Pentium 5, and it better come soon. I would not be surprised if Apple comes out with the G5 in January, just to say they were the first to have a generation 5 possessor, but I could be wrong.
Ok, I made my case, now, what do you guys think? By the way: I got this information about the Pentium 5 from eWeek, so it is reputable.
Now, for the G4: I am not sure how many transistors the G4 has, but I imagine it is way less then 100 million, or even 42 million, considering the P4 came out after the G4. Anyway, the cache on the G4 is higher on the high-end, 2mb of cache. But: the speed: 1.25Ghz? Can that really stand up to a P5 with 333mhz bus, and 3.2Ghz clock speeds? My opinion: most likely not.
Let's be honest, the P4 basically can beat the G4 in most tasks today, so a new faster version of the P4, the P5 can easily beat the G4, most likely in 95-99% of all tasks.
Ok, we have established that the G4 is, well, to slow against the P5, even though we don't know about it yet, I imagine it will be. Well, Apple just pulled the plug on OS 9 for January, what could this mean? I am not sure, only Steve knows. But Apple better come out with something that can at least compete with the Pentium 5, and it better come soon. I would not be surprised if Apple comes out with the G5 in January, just to say they were the first to have a generation 5 possessor, but I could be wrong.
Ok, I made my case, now, what do you guys think? By the way: I got this information about the Pentium 5 from eWeek, so it is reputable.
more...
thatisme
Mar 29, 07:24 AM
robbieduncan is right-on with his explanation, you're making incorrect claims: focal lengths are independent of the size of the sensor, a 50 mm lens will be a 50 mm lens on a medium format body, a full frame analog body or an APS-C-sized dslr. What changes is the field of view, which is an angle. It is this angle which is different on the above-mentioned cameras. The reason why people write something to the effect `a 50 mm lens on a crop body is equivalent to 75~80 mm lens on a full frame body' is that we've gotten used to associating focal lengths on 35 mm bodies to FOVs. Sort of like Americans got used to measuring distances in miles rather than kilometers.
which is why I have not made the claim that 200mm on one lens is not equal to 200mm on the other (by actual measurements). What I have claimed is that the EFFECTIVE (perceived) focal length is different, when angle is taken into effect (the size of the sensor in relation to the size of the rear element).
YOU WILL GET DIFFERENT IMAGES IF YOU USE A 200mm EF Lens on a 7D (APS-C) and a 200mm EF-S lens on that same camera due to the FOVCF. on the EF lens, the 200mm assumes you are using the ENTIRE image circle of the lens, which you are not. You ARE using the ENTIRE image circle on the EF-S lens, which is a True 200mm for that camera. You have to use the ENTIRE image circle to get a true measure of the focal length. when you use only a portion of that image circle, you have to apply the FOVCF to get the EFFECTIVE focal length.
Your last 2 sentences actually prove my point for me. Everything in today's photography arsenal (at least in DSLR) is based on the old film standard of 35mm image recording space (or sensor size). It is you standard of measure. It has not changed with Digital. This is why we have conversion factors and have to talk of EFFECTIVE focal lengths.
which is why I have not made the claim that 200mm on one lens is not equal to 200mm on the other (by actual measurements). What I have claimed is that the EFFECTIVE (perceived) focal length is different, when angle is taken into effect (the size of the sensor in relation to the size of the rear element).
YOU WILL GET DIFFERENT IMAGES IF YOU USE A 200mm EF Lens on a 7D (APS-C) and a 200mm EF-S lens on that same camera due to the FOVCF. on the EF lens, the 200mm assumes you are using the ENTIRE image circle of the lens, which you are not. You ARE using the ENTIRE image circle on the EF-S lens, which is a True 200mm for that camera. You have to use the ENTIRE image circle to get a true measure of the focal length. when you use only a portion of that image circle, you have to apply the FOVCF to get the EFFECTIVE focal length.
Your last 2 sentences actually prove my point for me. Everything in today's photography arsenal (at least in DSLR) is based on the old film standard of 35mm image recording space (or sensor size). It is you standard of measure. It has not changed with Digital. This is why we have conversion factors and have to talk of EFFECTIVE focal lengths.
CAWjr
Mar 24, 03:31 PM
I'm already getting two iPad 2s for me & my wife & I saw this & wanted to get one for my daughter. My wife made a pretty good statement of "Do we need to go from no iPads to three in one house?"
Chalk up another version of "Wife said no."
Chalk up another version of "Wife said no."
more...
Cougarcat
Apr 25, 05:50 PM
don't have those Amazon placeholders a pretty bad reliability index?
Yes. Amazon doesn't know anything. They are just guessing.
That said, I'd bet money on DVD+Mac App Store being the two options. Maybe for 10.8 we'll see USB drives.
Perhaps Family Pack edition only. Or maybe have it a premium option.
For who? People who bought a 2011 iMac or MacBook in the first half of the year? That's a pretty small audience. It's possible Apple could offer a "premium" USB version for a bit more, but it *definitely* won't use thunderbolt.
Yes. Amazon doesn't know anything. They are just guessing.
That said, I'd bet money on DVD+Mac App Store being the two options. Maybe for 10.8 we'll see USB drives.
Perhaps Family Pack edition only. Or maybe have it a premium option.
For who? People who bought a 2011 iMac or MacBook in the first half of the year? That's a pretty small audience. It's possible Apple could offer a "premium" USB version for a bit more, but it *definitely* won't use thunderbolt.
MACloop
Apr 5, 09:35 AM
Hello,
I do some download in my app where some of the data are images. In my app I save this data and create uiimages object where needed. Everything works fine so far. My problem is:
I have a custom tableViewCell class and in this class I have a UIImageView defined. No matter which size I set to this Uiimageview, the image put into it gets the height of the tablecell. I have tried to change the viewMode for the cell uiimageview content but without any luck so far. What can I do to actually get the images to be displayed with the size of the uiimageview it is added into...?
The images is created like this:
NSFileManager *fileManager = [[NSFileManager alloc]init];
UIImage *imgToUse = [[UIImage alloc] initWithData:[fileManager contentsAtPath:[dict objectForKey:@"data_path"]]];
[fileManager release];
After this the images is saved into a dictionary and in the table delegate method - (UITableViewCell *)tableView:(UITableView *)t cellForRowAtIndexPath:(NSIndexPath *)indexPath {
the image is added to the imageView, like this:
cell.imageView.image = [[self.imageDict objectForKey:@"some key here"];
Any Ideas? I do not understand why the cell height controls the image height? What am I doing wrong?
Thanks in advance!
MACloop
I do some download in my app where some of the data are images. In my app I save this data and create uiimages object where needed. Everything works fine so far. My problem is:
I have a custom tableViewCell class and in this class I have a UIImageView defined. No matter which size I set to this Uiimageview, the image put into it gets the height of the tablecell. I have tried to change the viewMode for the cell uiimageview content but without any luck so far. What can I do to actually get the images to be displayed with the size of the uiimageview it is added into...?
The images is created like this:
NSFileManager *fileManager = [[NSFileManager alloc]init];
UIImage *imgToUse = [[UIImage alloc] initWithData:[fileManager contentsAtPath:[dict objectForKey:@"data_path"]]];
[fileManager release];
After this the images is saved into a dictionary and in the table delegate method - (UITableViewCell *)tableView:(UITableView *)t cellForRowAtIndexPath:(NSIndexPath *)indexPath {
the image is added to the imageView, like this:
cell.imageView.image = [[self.imageDict objectForKey:@"some key here"];
Any Ideas? I do not understand why the cell height controls the image height? What am I doing wrong?
Thanks in advance!
MACloop
more...
sarge
Mar 25, 10:37 AM
A little background is necessary here:
Kodak - where it all started
In the early 1980s, Kodak invented the OLED technology. Kodak are still working on OLEDs, on both displays and lighting, and have licensed its OLED display technology to around 20 companies, including LG, CMEL and others. They are still perfecting their OLED lighting tech, and seeking partners to bring it to market. Back in we interviewed Mr. Corey Hewitt, Operations Manager & Vice President, Kodak OLED Systems
UPDATE: In December Kodak announced that they have sold all of their OLED business to LG. LG paid $100 million for the OLED unit. They will still have access to the technology for their own products.
Kodak - where it all started
In the early 1980s, Kodak invented the OLED technology. Kodak are still working on OLEDs, on both displays and lighting, and have licensed its OLED display technology to around 20 companies, including LG, CMEL and others. They are still perfecting their OLED lighting tech, and seeking partners to bring it to market. Back in we interviewed Mr. Corey Hewitt, Operations Manager & Vice President, Kodak OLED Systems
UPDATE: In December Kodak announced that they have sold all of their OLED business to LG. LG paid $100 million for the OLED unit. They will still have access to the technology for their own products.
BaldiMac
Mar 25, 09:34 AM
Before all you Apple fannies disagree with this; just remember Apple is trying to sue everyone else too.
It's all ridiculous.
Second that.
Everyone else? How many patent lawsuits has Apple initiated in the last decade? HTC. Any significant others?
It's all ridiculous.
Second that.
Everyone else? How many patent lawsuits has Apple initiated in the last decade? HTC. Any significant others?
more...
thisisahughes
Mar 25, 01:42 AM
that almost makes me feel bad for selling a 16gb wi-fi only for $375 last week. Oh well...i'm over it.
+1
+1
dhlvrsn
Sep 26, 09:45 AM
Apple needs to be very vigorous in defending the iPod TM. Not sure if anyone else caught it but with the updated iPod line CNN ran a story. In it the woman stated that Apple currently controls "70% of the iPod market." Unless the rebranded HP models are selling like hotcakes sounds like a generic use of the term to me.
more...
talmy
Feb 27, 06:28 PM
Apple has bragged that they had only one version of OS X (compared to the half dozen versions of Windows), so if this is "done right" they could really make good on that promise. There doesn't seem to be that much fundamentally different in the underpinnings of Snow Leopard and Snow Leopard Server. If the server version of Lion doesn't lose anything then it should be fine, as far as what I need, at least.
IMHO, anyone who has considered Apple servers for heavy, or even medium, duty use has always been living dangerously. Between single source hardware and miniscule market share, why take the chance? For my SOHO use, it's been working out just fine.
IMHO, anyone who has considered Apple servers for heavy, or even medium, duty use has always been living dangerously. Between single source hardware and miniscule market share, why take the chance? For my SOHO use, it's been working out just fine.
torbjoern
May 6, 06:15 AM
What???
It probably depends on the specifics of the network you want to build, but overall, I always found it ridiculously easy to build a Mac OS network than a Windows one.
You may want to provide specific examples on how networking in OS X is 'insanely hard' as compared to Windows.
Even under Linux, it's easier than in Windows.
It probably depends on the specifics of the network you want to build, but overall, I always found it ridiculously easy to build a Mac OS network than a Windows one.
You may want to provide specific examples on how networking in OS X is 'insanely hard' as compared to Windows.
Even under Linux, it's easier than in Windows.
more...
Analog Kid
Nov 22, 03:28 AM
As a mechanical engineer, I'm not exactly cynical about this application of Eneco's technology, but I remain very, very skeptical. With such a relatively small temperature difference, I would say it is very unlikely that such a device would be economically feasible. A quick visit to Eneco's site shows me that they don't even have lab data for temperature differences of less than 100 deg C!
They obfuscate the issue of efficiency by referring to the Carnot efficiency to inflate the numbers to the uninitiated. Sadi Carnot showed that an ideal heat engine that operated between two infinite reservoirs at temperatures, T(hot) and T(cold) would have an efficiency of ( T(hot)-T(cold) ) / T(hot), and the temperatures have to be on an absolute scale like Kelvin or Rankine. The "Carnot efficiency" compares the performance of the system in question to this ideal heat engine.
Suppose you ran your chip at a very warm 90 deg C (363 K) and could dump the heat to your 25 deg C (298 K) room, your perfect efficiency would be about 18%! This means that for every 5W of heat you dissipate from the chip, you get a little less that 1 W of electric power. Something with an impressive-sounding 50% Carnot efficiency would really have a measly 9% real efficiency.
Unless Eneco sells these things very cheaply and makes them very small, I can't see Apple going through the trouble and expense of adding them to their portables for such a small benefit in recycled power. I remain skeptical, yet open-minded.
Finding efficiency data for temperatures below 100C would be important since the max junction temperature for most processors is below that. Power supply devices max out at about 150C. You just can't get hotter than that and expect silicon to function as a semiconductor.
If the Intel chips burn 100W, then 9% conversion efficiency would generate 9W of electricity. In absolute terms, that's not too bad. You can do a lot with 9W. If you have a 5 hour battery life now, and can use these on all the major power sinks, you'd get 5.5 hours of battery life.
(Those are big "if"s, but putting them in bold seemed a bit too cynical...)
Interesting, but not earth shattering yet... If this became widespread though and we could cut world energy consumption by 10%-- that would be a big deal. Personally, I think there's more to be gained in cars (hotter and less efficient to begin with) than computers, but who knows.
They obfuscate the issue of efficiency by referring to the Carnot efficiency to inflate the numbers to the uninitiated. Sadi Carnot showed that an ideal heat engine that operated between two infinite reservoirs at temperatures, T(hot) and T(cold) would have an efficiency of ( T(hot)-T(cold) ) / T(hot), and the temperatures have to be on an absolute scale like Kelvin or Rankine. The "Carnot efficiency" compares the performance of the system in question to this ideal heat engine.
Suppose you ran your chip at a very warm 90 deg C (363 K) and could dump the heat to your 25 deg C (298 K) room, your perfect efficiency would be about 18%! This means that for every 5W of heat you dissipate from the chip, you get a little less that 1 W of electric power. Something with an impressive-sounding 50% Carnot efficiency would really have a measly 9% real efficiency.
Unless Eneco sells these things very cheaply and makes them very small, I can't see Apple going through the trouble and expense of adding them to their portables for such a small benefit in recycled power. I remain skeptical, yet open-minded.
Finding efficiency data for temperatures below 100C would be important since the max junction temperature for most processors is below that. Power supply devices max out at about 150C. You just can't get hotter than that and expect silicon to function as a semiconductor.
If the Intel chips burn 100W, then 9% conversion efficiency would generate 9W of electricity. In absolute terms, that's not too bad. You can do a lot with 9W. If you have a 5 hour battery life now, and can use these on all the major power sinks, you'd get 5.5 hours of battery life.
(Those are big "if"s, but putting them in bold seemed a bit too cynical...)
Interesting, but not earth shattering yet... If this became widespread though and we could cut world energy consumption by 10%-- that would be a big deal. Personally, I think there's more to be gained in cars (hotter and less efficient to begin with) than computers, but who knows.
aristotle
Mar 23, 09:20 PM
Are you people seriously applauding this? What a waste of our tax dollars!! I do contracts with the Navy every single day and I know that the technology that they have will not be benefited by the use of iPad/iPod/iPhone. The military does not offer wi-fi to their staff on base. Everything is hard wired and the conduit is sealed with a tamper proof silicon. The Government is very very particular about their SIPRnet (as they call it). Without wi-fi, what use is the iPad for the military other than to give them a little treat and waste our tax dollars? They already have mobile equipment in the vehicles that is far superior to Apple's products.
Yeah, I'm going to have to call you on this. If you really worked with the navy, you would have been aware of this Terra Soft and Lockheed put xserves in US Subs (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/83783/Terra_Soft_Lockheed_to_put_Xserves_in_US_Navy_subs) and that the military and intelligence community has a long history with macs and NextStep computers.
Previous versions of OS X had lockdown instructions written by the NSA for high security clearance environments and the iPhone has been in testing by the Army for some time now. Non-jailbroken iPhones are really hard to crack with the latest firmware through remote exploits.
Yeah, I'm going to have to call you on this. If you really worked with the navy, you would have been aware of this Terra Soft and Lockheed put xserves in US Subs (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/83783/Terra_Soft_Lockheed_to_put_Xserves_in_US_Navy_subs) and that the military and intelligence community has a long history with macs and NextStep computers.
Previous versions of OS X had lockdown instructions written by the NSA for high security clearance environments and the iPhone has been in testing by the Army for some time now. Non-jailbroken iPhones are really hard to crack with the latest firmware through remote exploits.
more...
mrsir2009
Apr 24, 03:08 AM
This is for the 13" model as its the one I'm interested in:
1. Thunderbolt.
2. Backlit keyboard!
1. Thunderbolt.
2. Backlit keyboard!
RossoA
Oct 19, 12:53 PM
I have a few questions, as I will be in London all day and want to be one of the first 500 (i.e. T-Shirt time :D):
1. Do you there will be a long queue?
2. What time should I get there to make sure I'm one of the first?
Thanks
1. Do you there will be a long queue?
2. What time should I get there to make sure I'm one of the first?
Thanks
maokh
Jun 11, 02:20 PM
The AWS 1700/2100 is a weird beast. And yes, the FCC, as well as TMobile, would have rather harmonized the band allocation with the rest of the world.
The problem is, the reverse allocation (phone to "tower") in the european 2100 band overlaps our existing american 1900 band.
So the FCC had to come up with some weird split band with the free allocations it had, creating a really weird beast that requires custom radios on both the handset and "tower" side.
Also, in case anyone is wondering, the 1800 band has been allocated to the US federal government. Among many other things, a benefit of which is to operate ad-hoc/covert communication networks using commodity european band GSM gear. Go figure.
With the AWS allocation, we will never have a 1800 band either even if the feds ditch it.
In terms of this "analyst" report, what a bunch of idiots. I also highly doubt that apple would create a special iPhone or modify its globally distributed product for what may only be 1-3 million subscribers a year from now. Especially since AWS band handsets will need additional RF circuitry at additional cost due to its obscurity and lack of support on multiband chipsets.
I think that AWS will come only by chance when it just happens to be cheaper than the existing chipset they are using.
The problem is, the reverse allocation (phone to "tower") in the european 2100 band overlaps our existing american 1900 band.
So the FCC had to come up with some weird split band with the free allocations it had, creating a really weird beast that requires custom radios on both the handset and "tower" side.
Also, in case anyone is wondering, the 1800 band has been allocated to the US federal government. Among many other things, a benefit of which is to operate ad-hoc/covert communication networks using commodity european band GSM gear. Go figure.
With the AWS allocation, we will never have a 1800 band either even if the feds ditch it.
In terms of this "analyst" report, what a bunch of idiots. I also highly doubt that apple would create a special iPhone or modify its globally distributed product for what may only be 1-3 million subscribers a year from now. Especially since AWS band handsets will need additional RF circuitry at additional cost due to its obscurity and lack of support on multiband chipsets.
I think that AWS will come only by chance when it just happens to be cheaper than the existing chipset they are using.
pmz
Aug 19, 11:35 AM
If you use this, you're an idiot. Plain and simple. No debate or discussion.
OdduWon
Oct 10, 12:29 PM
most of us are saying that the outside is great but the entire inside needs to be redisigned anyway for the hot under the paste merom and the new chip set for santarosa, duo2 is a different board too i think. my point is this, because intel promised cool chips apple discarded some thermal buffer when they madi mbp less than 1 inch, now their faced with a redesign for a processor that will be 0utdated in 3 months or the will spend thwe time to give us a place holder that wont cook our sausage.
mcrain
Apr 4, 11:12 AM
Where did itcheroni mention Republicans or Democrats or (your personal favorite) George Bush? Best I can tell, he/she is talking calmly, non-partisanly about (1) whether the article's conclusion is proper in light of other, relevant economic factors, and (2) how income tax affects his/her decision on where to reside.
Mcrain, I honestly am starting to think you awaken two or three times every night, screaming, "GOP!!! Bush!!! Ahhh!!!"
How can you discuss tax rates and NOT acknowledge that the rates we have today are the rates that include the Bush tax cuts? How can you discuss deficits and spending when there were surplusses when Clinton left office and he had higher tax rates and spending than Bush? If you ignore history, you are doomed to repeat it. Right?
It isn't a matter of spite, it's merely a matter of looking at what works and what doesn't, and cutting taxes does not, in and of itself work. Reasonable spending that targets necessary services, along with reasonably higher tax rates, has worked in the past. The current political climate has us arguing about cutting spending and cutting services and cutting taxes. It's bizarroland. We are undoing decades of progress so that we can push an economic model that has never worked in the past.
It's not Republican vs. Democrat, it's what hasn't worked vs. what has worked. The only reason to continually repeat who is responsible or who is pushing a proposal is to make certain that people don't fall for the economic conservative language being used by the people who are anything but being conservative.
Mcrain, I honestly am starting to think you awaken two or three times every night, screaming, "GOP!!! Bush!!! Ahhh!!!"
How can you discuss tax rates and NOT acknowledge that the rates we have today are the rates that include the Bush tax cuts? How can you discuss deficits and spending when there were surplusses when Clinton left office and he had higher tax rates and spending than Bush? If you ignore history, you are doomed to repeat it. Right?
It isn't a matter of spite, it's merely a matter of looking at what works and what doesn't, and cutting taxes does not, in and of itself work. Reasonable spending that targets necessary services, along with reasonably higher tax rates, has worked in the past. The current political climate has us arguing about cutting spending and cutting services and cutting taxes. It's bizarroland. We are undoing decades of progress so that we can push an economic model that has never worked in the past.
It's not Republican vs. Democrat, it's what hasn't worked vs. what has worked. The only reason to continually repeat who is responsible or who is pushing a proposal is to make certain that people don't fall for the economic conservative language being used by the people who are anything but being conservative.
iJohnHenry
May 3, 07:25 AM
commanded by Bin Laden's second in command...
Next!!
Now serving Number 2.
Next!!
Now serving Number 2.
iZaid
Oct 19, 01:11 PM
is anyone going to the mac expo on friday? or just the apple store, i feel like getting an imac but i dont know if i should.:confused::confused::confused:
No comments:
Post a Comment