Tuesday, May 10, 2011

cool wallpaper photos

cool wallpaper photos. Cool wallpaper pattern
  • Cool wallpaper pattern



  • redkamel
    Apr 13, 01:16 AM
    When Apple's Pro App for photographers, Aperture, hit the App Store, the price dropped from $200 to only $80. Compare this to Adobe's $300 Lightroom app.

    Providing Pro Apps at such low prices helps to establish Apple's hardware as more affordable. Today's young computer users bring a sophistication to application utilization that previous generations did not. High school students quickly outgrow iMovie's capabilities in their media classes and are prepared to move up.

    Forget "Pro Apps"- these are "Advanced Apps" and, though the pros may not like it, these apps are going to make it into the hands of amateurs and hobbyists.As a professional photographer, I recommend Aperture to even the most novice digital photographer- if you can understand iPhoto, Aperture is within reach.

    Ultimately, don't let the low price fool you. Volume of sales and baiting eager pro app users to the Apple OS will do more for Apple than trying to make these apps solely available to professionals. Software-only companies are at a big disadvantage here- selling inexpensive (and great) software will ultimately increase their overall sales as the hardware flies off the shelves.

    I think a large part of it has to do with how Aperture is much more visual while PS is more menu based. It makes it much easier to learn.

    I'd agree; Apple is dropping software prices for good reasons.

    1. Computers are very powerful nowadays. It is stupid to make pro apps out of the reach of people who own prosumer machines...even a mid level macbook pro can run Aperture and FCP to some extent. Might as well use that power and sell software along with giving a halo effect to all your machines. FCP is linked to Apple. Avid, Lightroom are not.

    2. It sells computers when amateurs or pros can get pro apps for cheap and vice versa. I know if I was OS neutral and owned a business or was an amateur, I'd rather have reliable, shiny "cool" macs with cheaper pro software, than cheaper windows boxes with expensive software. The functionality is likely equal, but the Apples will end up breaking even (cheaper software) and be more reliable.

    3. Cheaper software means more people use it, which means it will eventually become more standard. I remember me and my friend having theories about Adobe "allowing" HS and college kids to pirate software because when they graduated, then that is all they knew...and they would have to buy it if they wanted to work, and businesses would have to buy it if they wanted to hire. A cheaper alternative to legal PS would be out of luck unless it could break that cycle. Ive been using Aperture since it came out. You think I want to work for someone using Lightroom or Aperture? (actually, i guess it doesnt really matter... :p work would be work)





    cool wallpaper photos. Cool Wallpaper 5 Features
  • Cool Wallpaper 5 Features



  • dgree03
    Apr 28, 09:09 AM
    Kudos for looking for something (seriously) -- I'd argue that it's a bit limited in scope, though:
    -Limited to America
    -Limited to adults
    -Calculating by household, with strictly boolean "yes or no" (not counting multiples)

    For example, in my house, we have 4 laptops and 1 desktop machine, but for this survey, it would only be counted as "yes" for both. Actually, it wouldn't be counted at all, since we're in England ;-)

    True it is limited to to americas, but I would argue(without any real evidence) that americans in general have more disposable income to afford laptops(which are generally more expensive than desktops.) So i would guess the market for desktop is EVEN BIGGER outside the US.

    Limited to adult is true.

    Yes/no answer is true also, but the same can be said about households with 4 desktops and 1 laptop ;).





    cool wallpaper photos. Cool Wallpaper 6 Features
  • Cool Wallpaper 6 Features



  • Demoman
    Jul 12, 09:36 PM
    This thread is getting too funny. Apple has been so far behind on power these past few years and now we get the chance to use Conroe, and suddenly that's not good enough for the Mac snobs. Conroe is an extremely fast chip (especially compared to G5), so I don't get why some people think it's a bad choice for the pro-line up. Sure, it can't do smp, but not everyone needs or want to pay for quad processing.

    So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.

    SW engineers usually optimize their systems with expectations of the environment they will run in. Pro-level applications often run much better in systems that use SMP, but not all. Sometimes it is better to pipeline a few processes at high speed, rather than do a lot of task swapping. Most of Apples core customer's application seem to benefit from SMP. So, that is what they are going to expect from Pro-level hardware.





    cool wallpaper photos. Cool wallpaper pattern
  • Cool wallpaper pattern



  • peharri
    Sep 24, 05:18 PM
    Mac Mini? I suspect that's exactly what Apple wants to drive sales of.

    I know, they need to be cheaper.

    Well, my view is that the $300 iTV will not work if it needs $600 worth of computer attached to it, especially if the sole role of the computer is as some kind of file server. Even more especially (!) if the $600 computer doesn't come with that much storage anyway, and the even even even more if viewing content on your TV means going into the bedroom to download the program onto the computer, and then walking back into the livingroom to watch it.

    Now a $200 server might make some sense, but ultimately I can't help but think anything that adds to the start-up cost of the iTV will sink it.

    Ultimately, I'm of the opinion Apple isn't suicidal. It does intend the iTV to be desirable. It plans to use it to ensure the iTS remains relevent. It plans to expand, not retract, its online media business. It doesn't consider the Mac to be so important it needs to be pushed to the detriment of the rest of the business. It is worried about the post-iPod future. It does need to find a way of selling online movie downloads to sceptical studio executives. For all of these reasons and more, I'm finding the notion Apple would release a $300 TV adapter and announce it at a movies download event a little... well, does it make sense to you?

    You know who's fault this is? It's Apple's. If they hadn't done that stupid "Fun products" presentation back in February, with those stupid leather iPod cases and the overpriced speaker system, I think people would be a whole lot more positive!





    cool wallpaper photos. Create a Cool Wallpaper
  • Create a Cool Wallpaper



  • Hunabku
    Apr 20, 06:28 PM
    I guess if you want a computer that is cheap and weak, you can get a Windows computer.

    Cheap (maybe) - Weak (no) unless you're taking reliability into account.





    cool wallpaper photos. HD Cool Wallpapers Pack
  • HD Cool Wallpapers Pack



  • SactoGuy18
    Mar 14, 07:47 AM
    My opinion: it's time to end the age of light-water cooled pressurized uranium-fueled reactors. There's so many drawbacks to this design it's not funny.

    Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:

    1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
    2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
    3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
    4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
    5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
    6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).

    So what are we waiting for?





    cool wallpaper photos. Cool Wallpaper Collection: 3D
  • Cool Wallpaper Collection: 3D



  • acslater017
    Apr 15, 11:00 AM
    It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.

    What are you talking about? If you're talking about the Apple employees, this issue is obviously something that's very personal, real, and long-lasting for them. It's hardly a "hip" or "trendy" thing. If you're just talking about society (or the MacRumors forum), I don't understand that either. Many people are bullied, sure. But what's wrong with focusing on this particular group? There has been a recent spate in teen suicides due to teasing surrounding their sexual orientation.

    Many people are suffering, so we shouldn't bring up the Tsunami in Japan? Wars occur all the time, so we shouldn't try to stop the genocide in Darfur?





    cool wallpaper photos. Cool free wallpaper - The
  • Cool free wallpaper - The



  • Mord
    Jul 12, 01:19 PM
    the g5 numbers are typical, conroe nomubers are max.





    cool wallpaper photos. Cool Wallpaper Collection:
  • Cool Wallpaper Collection:



  • Huntn
    Mar 13, 08:00 AM
    The disaster in Japan is prompting this thread (obviously). I remember when nuclear power was described as the answer to all of our problems. I turned against Nuclear when I realized there was a waste problem, a tremendous problem that won't go away for over a thousand years. My understanding is that there might be a way to recycle nuclear waste, but the U.S. does not recycle nuclear fuel for "economic and security" reasons. I remember reading something about it, that used/recycled fuel could be used as a bomb. Then there are those ten thousand barrels of waste that nobody, especially Nevada do not want. If you look at France a substantial player in nuclear power, they have a "not in my backyard" problem. Throw in unpredictable events such as tsunamis, earthquakes, and terrorist events and nuclear does not seem all that wonderful to me.

    Counter views?





    cool wallpaper photos. cool wallpapers!
  • cool wallpapers!



  • dgree03
    Apr 21, 08:49 AM
    I agree with everything you just said, it's the same concept as tethering without paying the mandatory fee. People will try to justify stealing in any way possible.

    So are you going to tell me that paying for tethering ON TOP OF DATA YOU ALREADY PAID FOR is fair? Data is data is data... 4gb is 4gb no matter how I use it. Tethering cost are a joke!:mad: /end rant

    You are joking right?





    cool wallpaper photos. cool wallpaper caricature
  • cool wallpaper caricature



  • Ugg
    Mar 13, 12:21 PM
    What is the alternative to nuclear power? These green ways of producing electricity cost a lot more and what I've heard, they can't provide enough power. Plus they don't work everywhere (not enough sun or wind in here for example).

    Whether it's a good move to build nuclear plants near tectonic plate joints, that's another question. We don't have seismic activity in here so such natural catastrophes aren't a concern.

    Of course you would say that, Finland gets ~30% of its energy from nuclear. Olkiluoto isn't exactly coming in under budget, is it?

    It's not just a matter whether it is safe in your country, it's also a matter of whether it's safe for your neighbors. If I remember correctly, y'all had to throw away a lot of caribou meat after Chernobyl.





    cool wallpaper photos. Cool Wallpaper for mortal
  • Cool Wallpaper for mortal



  • likemyorbs
    Mar 26, 12:49 PM
    Wow. Someone should explain to him all the reasons why that is unconstitutional.





    cool wallpaper photos. A cool wallpaper by #39;Pete#39;
  • A cool wallpaper by #39;Pete#39;



  • ddtlm
    Oct 10, 07:55 PM
    javajedi:

    Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.

    There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.

    Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.

    BTW:
    Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.





    cool wallpaper photos. Space Wallpapers
  • Space Wallpapers



  • WestonHarvey1
    Apr 15, 12:23 PM
    No. I am not blaming my confusion on semantics� ;)

    So, according to your interpretation of the CCC:
    unmarried straight couples are having "sinful" sex.
    unmarried same-sex couples are having "sinful" sex.
    married (but not in a church) straight couples are having sinful sex.
    married (but not in a church) same-sex couples are having sinful sex.
    married (Catholics) are having sinful sex, if not purely for reproduction.
    Which leaves us with�
    married (Catholics) are having righteous sex, but only if for reproduction.

    Such fun!

    Your list is almost right, but one thing to clarify, it's not "only for reproduction". Merely that it has to be open to the possibility of reproduction - i.e., no contraception. Also note that doesn't mean infertile people can't have sex. It just means the nature of the act itself isn't being deliberately subverted.

    Catholics are not puritans and the sensual nature of sex is celebrated as well as the procreative nature.





    cool wallpaper photos. Cool Chipmunk Wallpaper
  • Cool Chipmunk Wallpaper



  • roland.g
    Sep 20, 09:56 AM
    Since iTV most likely wont be a DVR device, I coughed up $700 today for a Sony DVR instead.
    I am sure Apple has a brilliant plan for the iTV, but I fail to see it.

    iTV is a great product. If you want a DVR, buy a DVR, if you want the next level of streaming, iTV is it. I already use Airtunes alot. It is hooked up to my stereo. Anytime I'm out in the yard or having a BBQ, I just plug in the Express and some speakers out back and stream music there.

    I personally don't buy tv shows and movies, but I like the idea of being able to code anything video into iTunes and view it on my tv along with slideshows, music, trailers.





    cool wallpaper photos. Cool wallpaper
  • Cool wallpaper



  • tbrinkma
    Apr 28, 08:27 AM
    Right, but how is that not a fad? By definition, it doesn't matter how said fad ends, it simply means that it's overall existence is temporary.

    I agree that it it was replaced by newer technology that does more, but it still was a fad in the end.

    By that definition, the internal combustion engine is nothing but a fad. I think maybe you're just not familiar with what the word "fad" actually means Check it out: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fad





    cool wallpaper photos. Cool Wallpaper Collection: 3D
  • Cool Wallpaper Collection: 3D



  • roland.g
    Sep 20, 10:28 AM
    I'm quit sure Steve Jobs demonstrated it to him in his house.Informing him about the hard drive.

    I want to get invited to Steve's house for a BBQ. I'll bring the beer if he supplies the Apples. ;)





    cool wallpaper photos. 20 Cool Designed Wallpapers
  • 20 Cool Designed Wallpapers



  • slffl
    Oct 7, 12:05 PM
    To quote the bit on Jimmy Fallon... 'Who Cares?'

    Obviously market share doesn't mean crap as is evident in the OS market.





    cool wallpaper photos. Into The Blue Cool Wallpaper
  • Into The Blue Cool Wallpaper



  • mpstrex
    Aug 29, 04:09 PM
    Actually, he's on the Al Gore movement. ;)

    NO! Al Gore is in it for himself? I thought he was a selfless guy, out for the environment. I mean, his movie DID make over $20 million and the budget was REAL low, and the majority of the crew worked on it for free...

    http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=inconvenienttruth.htm





    Rodimus Prime
    Mar 12, 01:44 PM
    BTW, this Japanese plant was built in 1971, which is *older* than the 30+ years you deride the old Soviet plants for being. So there's more of your 'expert because I've got two degrees' opinion lying in more not so expert after all rubble. Speaking of deriding:
    :p

    I might like to point out that the Chernobyl plant was designed to produced weapons grade plutonium and produce power. That put some major problems on the design and put safety at risk. Control rods would have to be able to removed WHILE the reactor was running and fairly often. Not something you do unless you plane on making weapons grade plutonium. It also had to be much larger in size because it needed to produce power.

    Yet another reason why this is not be Chernobyl.
    We can also add unlike Soviet Russia Japan would not of cut huge safety corners to save cost at the time and over the past 30 years they sure as hell would of improved the plants safe.





    Evangelion
    Jul 12, 01:02 AM
    Sounds like these new Mac Pros are going to be expensive.

    In a way, yes. And I think that ThinkSecret is right as well: I bet that we will see a "MacPro Mini" featuring a mini-tower-design (or maybe pizzabox) that will use Conroe. MacPro would be all quad-core. The Mini would cost $1499 - $1999, whereas MacPro would cost $2499 - $3499. iMac would get Merom.

    I made this prediction a while ago, and I still stand by it.





    capvideo
    Mar 21, 01:37 AM
    Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy.

    Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.

    Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.

    No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.

    You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.

    You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.

    This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.

    When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.

    Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.

    Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.

    Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.

    But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.

    In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.

    Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.

    Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.

    Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.

    That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?

    Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.

    Jerry





    T-Bone
    Sep 12, 04:16 PM
    I bought a DVI->S-Video adapter for $15 and an S-Video cable for about $20. Guess what. I can watch TV shows and movies downloaded to my hard drive on my TV. Sooooo.... $35 vs. $300. Let me see.

    I realize they are saying that you're getting high-def, and it's wireless, but I have a hard time believing that a movie you can download in a half hour will be as good of quality as a DVD which is nearly 8gb in size. And yes, I realize part of those 8gb are extras and such, which of course you won't be getting even though you are paying close to what you would pay for a brand new DVD. Also, I have wires running all over the place already (cable, phone, speakers, electrical, etc.) so one more wire isn't killing me.

    I'm sure there will be people that buy into this. How many? I predict very few.





    Rt&Dzine
    Apr 27, 10:47 AM
    No, no, I know who that is! He wrote lots of scripture (unlike Jesus):

    Oh the day divides the night
    Night divides the day
    Try to run
    Try to hide
    Break on through to
    The other side

    And the verse that everyone would do well to heed,
    Show me the way to the next whiskey bar

    Heretic! That is not the image of your false prophet.