- most popular short hairstyles
- The Most Popular Short
- most popular short hairstyles
- most popular short hairstyles
- Short hair styles for older
- Popular Short Hairstyles 2010
- While creating these hairstyles, and finding inspiration for the latest styles for short hair
- most popular hair styles
- Short hairstyles will not suit everyone, Though the cut was not popular
- over 3 most popular short
- Punk Hairstyles For Girls This
- 2009 most popular short hair
- Hairstyles for Blonde Curly
- most popular short hairstyle
- It is one of the most popular
- As one of the most popular
- Here are the most popular
- The Most Popular Short
- The most popular prom
Michael73
Apr 26, 08:47 AM
Apple consistently touts how recyclable the machines it makes are and often talks about other green aspects of the company. It wouldn't surprise me if Lion is offered at a discount through the App Store and then a small premium on physical dvd media. Not only are USB sticks still more expensive than a dvd, but probably not as environmentally friendly to manufacture and package.
Rooskibar03
Nov 18, 03:18 PM
Well, if rumours about the reason for white iPhone delays are correct (i.e., leakage from the white casing affecting camera performance), then he's just selling Apple's rejects. Fair enough, I suppose, if people are willing to pay for them (especially that much $$$). It would be interesting to hear reports about camera performance after the conversion.
While I cannot say what his parts looked or felt like I can tell you this. There is a huge difference between parts.
I ordered a "Genuine Apple" White Back plate from ebay. The color was awful, the flash blew out every picture and camera lens cover distorted images.
I then ordered a full conversion kit from another vendor. The parts looked very close but the end result was way different. No light leak, no flash issues and pictures as good as my black one.
The front plate had Apple printed on the ribbon cables. Does this make it genuine? Doubtful but there is no way I'll ever be able to tell.
I'm super happy with the result, and with Dock and Headphone converted as well, I paid a lot less then this kid was charging.
While I cannot say what his parts looked or felt like I can tell you this. There is a huge difference between parts.
I ordered a "Genuine Apple" White Back plate from ebay. The color was awful, the flash blew out every picture and camera lens cover distorted images.
I then ordered a full conversion kit from another vendor. The parts looked very close but the end result was way different. No light leak, no flash issues and pictures as good as my black one.
The front plate had Apple printed on the ribbon cables. Does this make it genuine? Doubtful but there is no way I'll ever be able to tell.
I'm super happy with the result, and with Dock and Headphone converted as well, I paid a lot less then this kid was charging.
CaoCao
Apr 15, 08:09 PM
Far more likely to do what? Statistically, a middle-aged white man is far more likely to be a member of the KKK than an African American youth. So what?
crime, I'm not sure how I forgot that word. Mea culpa
crime, I'm not sure how I forgot that word. Mea culpa
DeSnousa
Oct 26, 07:54 PM
This is really great, just tried it. It is nice and clean, exactly like Mail.app. This will be getting used alot at work on the Windows machine.
more...
SevenInchScrew
Jun 21, 09:45 AM
There is no point, but lots of people will tell you "you need all the room you can get." I stream all of my media content to my xbox. I only use the hard drive for downloadable games, game saves, and to "install" disc games to the drive. You can use a usb drive (16GB max) instead of a hard drive on the xbox.
There are 2 very good reasons for having a large hard drive, especially on the 360. You mentioned the game installs. That is the best reason ever. Not only do many games load things a little quicker, but the console becomes much quieter. The disc drive on the 360 is the source of much of its noise. By installing, you keep that drive from spinning while playing, and the system is MUCH quieter.
But also for downloadable stuff, which you mentioned. More and more games are releasing lots of DLC, and that can really add up. I have well over 12GB just in DLC for the games I own, and a little over 2GB in XBLA games. Now sure, as you said, you can use a USB drive. If you don't plan on downloading much stuff, that will work just fine. But, I really like having a ton of space. Even with many of my disc-based games installed, all my XBLA games, DLC and stuff, I still have over 30GB free to use for downloading demos and trailers and stuff, and I don't have to keep track of a bunch of different USB drives.
There are 2 very good reasons for having a large hard drive, especially on the 360. You mentioned the game installs. That is the best reason ever. Not only do many games load things a little quicker, but the console becomes much quieter. The disc drive on the 360 is the source of much of its noise. By installing, you keep that drive from spinning while playing, and the system is MUCH quieter.
But also for downloadable stuff, which you mentioned. More and more games are releasing lots of DLC, and that can really add up. I have well over 12GB just in DLC for the games I own, and a little over 2GB in XBLA games. Now sure, as you said, you can use a USB drive. If you don't plan on downloading much stuff, that will work just fine. But, I really like having a ton of space. Even with many of my disc-based games installed, all my XBLA games, DLC and stuff, I still have over 30GB free to use for downloading demos and trailers and stuff, and I don't have to keep track of a bunch of different USB drives.
Winni
Nov 6, 03:33 PM
Orwell's nightmare. Powered by Apple.
more...
alust2013
Mar 16, 11:43 PM
3.35-3.45 here in Columbus, OH
kgtenacious
Apr 27, 12:40 AM
Lemme' guess - it's going to be distributed through the app store, and everytime there is an update, you have to download an 8 GB install program for each update, ala XCode 4 :mad:
more...
ct-scan
Oct 10, 09:11 AM
ehh.. you know wikipedia isn't always right, right?
They are both based on the Core architecture, that was my only point.
I thought you were saying that they were completely unrelated.
Of course they are branded differently, they have different uses.
Historically Xeon is for high-end workstations and servers, people know and expect this.
They are both based on the Core architecture, that was my only point.
I thought you were saying that they were completely unrelated.
Of course they are branded differently, they have different uses.
Historically Xeon is for high-end workstations and servers, people know and expect this.
rdsaunders
Oct 29, 03:37 PM
I just wrote a little bit of a blog entry on the Regent Street opening you an read it here http://www.rdsaunders.co.uk/2007/10/26/mac-os-x-105-leopard-launch-regent-street-london-uk/
more...
brucem91
May 10, 09:05 PM
My buddy gave me the copy he got.
So i guess I'm outta luck!
Oh well.... I guess I will go bother Best Buy for my Beta Code!
Getting the application doesn't let you play. The game is online, and you have to log into SC II with a battle.net account that has a StarCraft 2 Beta Key registered with it.
So i guess I'm outta luck!
Oh well.... I guess I will go bother Best Buy for my Beta Code!
Getting the application doesn't let you play. The game is online, and you have to log into SC II with a battle.net account that has a StarCraft 2 Beta Key registered with it.
bella92108
Apr 1, 01:34 PM
My question though is how is this any different then having multiple TVs on your cable account? You can only watch TV on your account when your in your own home and on your own WiFi. Time warner took some pretty big steps to make sure you can't "steal" cable... It is a pretty secure app.
I am just wondering why Viacom and others are bitching? Its just like going in the other room and watching it on the other TV... Doesn't allow you to watch TV away from home..
Well TECHNICALLY Time Warner and Comcast (my provider) have tiny fine print in their service docs that say you have to report "additional outlets" to them and are subject to monthly fee.... now clearly I'm not going to call them and tell them I have a 15" tv plugged in in the second bedroom so they can charge me $4.95 more per month, but it is within their rights to do so, it's just another shady tactic they use. There's only 1 of me in the house, so how can I be using the content on more than 1 TV at the same time? LOL
It's like software... TECHNICALLY you buy a license.. you can use it on as many computers as you want for personal use, just not simultaneously... so one license is fine if you have a desktop and laptop. The line blurs with things like operating systems where you might have the desktop and laptop on, but only using one at a time... so there's grey area...
Either way, this sh%t is bananas!
I am just wondering why Viacom and others are bitching? Its just like going in the other room and watching it on the other TV... Doesn't allow you to watch TV away from home..
Well TECHNICALLY Time Warner and Comcast (my provider) have tiny fine print in their service docs that say you have to report "additional outlets" to them and are subject to monthly fee.... now clearly I'm not going to call them and tell them I have a 15" tv plugged in in the second bedroom so they can charge me $4.95 more per month, but it is within their rights to do so, it's just another shady tactic they use. There's only 1 of me in the house, so how can I be using the content on more than 1 TV at the same time? LOL
It's like software... TECHNICALLY you buy a license.. you can use it on as many computers as you want for personal use, just not simultaneously... so one license is fine if you have a desktop and laptop. The line blurs with things like operating systems where you might have the desktop and laptop on, but only using one at a time... so there's grey area...
Either way, this sh%t is bananas!
more...
bloodycape
Apr 25, 04:08 PM
There have been many intel gpu based machine that had 1600x900 res displays, like the C2D Vaio Z or some of the offerings from Lenovo. I don't see why apple can't give such a res with to the 11.6in MBA with a 350nit display and wide color gamut. Then just add and SD card slot, make the usb ports 3.0 and a maybe even add a thunderbolt port and I'd be the first in line to get one.
fleshman03
Apr 12, 05:20 PM
The update, which weighs?
Weight is other thing. The update has a size of...
Let's use the English language correctly.
FYI: it's an expression. LOL.
OMG, who didn't know that. (http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/24/omg-fyi-and-lol-enter-oxford-english-dictionary-foreshadow-th/) :D
Weight is other thing. The update has a size of...
Let's use the English language correctly.
FYI: it's an expression. LOL.
OMG, who didn't know that. (http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/24/omg-fyi-and-lol-enter-oxford-english-dictionary-foreshadow-th/) :D
more...
chrfr
Mar 29, 09:39 AM
Thatisme, maybe Canon can help clear up your confusion. http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/ef-s_and_field_of_view.do
drewyboy
Mar 23, 01:53 PM
License for $4?
Apple should license it for *free*.
They pretty much will. They do it w/ Airplay audio. $4 is only to cover extra cost of overhead needed to provide it to OEM's. No profit being made.
Apple should license it for *free*.
They pretty much will. They do it w/ Airplay audio. $4 is only to cover extra cost of overhead needed to provide it to OEM's. No profit being made.
more...
THX1139
Sep 20, 02:32 AM
I can confirm that SATA drives run at full speed now in WindowsXP.
You got this from the update? Does this mean we no longer need to slipstream the drivers to get XP to recognize the drives at normal speed?
Having to deal with the slow drives is keeping me from installing Windows. If the update makes that easier, I might go for it. I'll probably put Windows on it's own drive and then boot off it.
You got this from the update? Does this mean we no longer need to slipstream the drivers to get XP to recognize the drives at normal speed?
Having to deal with the slow drives is keeping me from installing Windows. If the update makes that easier, I might go for it. I'll probably put Windows on it's own drive and then boot off it.
jacobtaylor1987
Mar 28, 05:52 PM
Did anyone else notice the font used on the invitation is not Lucida Sans?
Do you recognize it?
It's Myriad.
They always use that.
Do you recognize it?
It's Myriad.
They always use that.
mrsir2009
Apr 28, 10:51 PM
seriously just shut ur pretty faces with the tired backlit keyboard anthem. this is like the least desirable feature esp since it has a direct impact on battery life.
You know if you were that worried about your precious battery life you could turn the keyboard lighting off.
You know if you were that worried about your precious battery life you could turn the keyboard lighting off.
scaredpoet
Dec 27, 11:06 PM
There are more iPhones, Macs, etc. sold here than anywhere in the world.
Where are your figures to back this up?
I don't care. I'm an iPhone owner. I don't have to prove affection for Apple products to anyone.
I didn't ask you to prove your affection, nor do I care what your affections are. I'm pointing out that your argument has no validity, irrespective of where your "affections" may lie.
Again you are not getting it. Maybe you never been around thieves but they will after anything they can sell. It is not like if they can't get the iPhone they will pick up their ball and go home.
Of course not, but it deters thieves from using the online system for easy pickins to commit fraud. So it's not as easy to steal an iPhone online anymore, and other smartphones aren't hot sellers, so they'll go find some other scam that affects someone else.
Yes they are linking to the same site. Have you got proof that The Consumerist is an unreliable website?
The burden of proof lies with you, who is to trying to make a point with thin, if any, actual evidence. I'm not using nor relying on the Consumerist to make my point, so I don't have to prove its validity or lack thereof.
On the other hand, you are using ONLY the Consumerist (and a couple blogs that are blindly parroting the Consumerist without doing any research of their own), and just telling me I HAVE to beleive the consumerist because YOU say it's "well-respected." Well, *I* never really respected the Consumerist, because it has a history of blindly following sensationalist leads and has a marked anti-corporate leaning. I'm more inclined to respect sources that are objective and don't have a mission that blatantly compromises that objectivity. So sorry, you'll have to find additional evidence. And I'm not going to do your homework for you.
What in the hell does this have to do with zip codes. They are blocking NYC. Period.
They are blocking sales online, by zip code. that makes it the cornerstone of this issue, and has everything to do with it.
Now you're getting me pissed.
Why, because you can't effectively prove your case because it relies on a single, un-corroborated source? Then you're taking this too personally. Why you have so much invested in convincing people that AT&T is blocking iPhone sales - and only online - for network resource control, is beyond me. Especially when such a tactic would have no effect on the problem this alleged conspiracy would supposedly solve. And the fact that you need to sell it so hard that it "pisses [you] off" that someone would challenge your thin and faulty argument kinda confirms you don't really have a leg to stand on.
Where are your figures to back this up?
I don't care. I'm an iPhone owner. I don't have to prove affection for Apple products to anyone.
I didn't ask you to prove your affection, nor do I care what your affections are. I'm pointing out that your argument has no validity, irrespective of where your "affections" may lie.
Again you are not getting it. Maybe you never been around thieves but they will after anything they can sell. It is not like if they can't get the iPhone they will pick up their ball and go home.
Of course not, but it deters thieves from using the online system for easy pickins to commit fraud. So it's not as easy to steal an iPhone online anymore, and other smartphones aren't hot sellers, so they'll go find some other scam that affects someone else.
Yes they are linking to the same site. Have you got proof that The Consumerist is an unreliable website?
The burden of proof lies with you, who is to trying to make a point with thin, if any, actual evidence. I'm not using nor relying on the Consumerist to make my point, so I don't have to prove its validity or lack thereof.
On the other hand, you are using ONLY the Consumerist (and a couple blogs that are blindly parroting the Consumerist without doing any research of their own), and just telling me I HAVE to beleive the consumerist because YOU say it's "well-respected." Well, *I* never really respected the Consumerist, because it has a history of blindly following sensationalist leads and has a marked anti-corporate leaning. I'm more inclined to respect sources that are objective and don't have a mission that blatantly compromises that objectivity. So sorry, you'll have to find additional evidence. And I'm not going to do your homework for you.
What in the hell does this have to do with zip codes. They are blocking NYC. Period.
They are blocking sales online, by zip code. that makes it the cornerstone of this issue, and has everything to do with it.
Now you're getting me pissed.
Why, because you can't effectively prove your case because it relies on a single, un-corroborated source? Then you're taking this too personally. Why you have so much invested in convincing people that AT&T is blocking iPhone sales - and only online - for network resource control, is beyond me. Especially when such a tactic would have no effect on the problem this alleged conspiracy would supposedly solve. And the fact that you need to sell it so hard that it "pisses [you] off" that someone would challenge your thin and faulty argument kinda confirms you don't really have a leg to stand on.
GGJstudios
May 5, 01:34 PM
Seriously? A few MB's of RAM saved is worth over double the price?
I've said nothing about prices. The "tax" I mentioned isn't a financial tax. You simply can't say that Computer A has x components and Computer B has the same x components, therefore, they should cost the same. A Rolls-Royce has an engine, doors, a steering wheel, windows, wheels and tires, just like a Subaru. Based on components, there shouldn't be such a wide disparity in prices between the two. Obviously, there are other factors involved that have nothing to do with the price of components.
Microsoft is trying to get buyers to think of computers as a commodity, priced only by the cost of the components involved. The reality is that computers are, for many buyers, quite personal and involve factors beyond RAM and hard drive capacity. Apple charges what it does for Macs because it can, and because people are willing to pay their prices. If that weren't the case, they would be forced to price them in line with Windows PCs in order to maintain sales.
The question shouldn't be, "Why does Apple charge so much more for Macs?", but rather, "Why are people willing to pay so much more for Macs?". It's not a tax at all, but rather a premium that Apple can successfully charge because people consider Macs to be worth the money they cost. If people didn't feel that way, they wouldn't buy them.
I've said nothing about prices. The "tax" I mentioned isn't a financial tax. You simply can't say that Computer A has x components and Computer B has the same x components, therefore, they should cost the same. A Rolls-Royce has an engine, doors, a steering wheel, windows, wheels and tires, just like a Subaru. Based on components, there shouldn't be such a wide disparity in prices between the two. Obviously, there are other factors involved that have nothing to do with the price of components.
Microsoft is trying to get buyers to think of computers as a commodity, priced only by the cost of the components involved. The reality is that computers are, for many buyers, quite personal and involve factors beyond RAM and hard drive capacity. Apple charges what it does for Macs because it can, and because people are willing to pay their prices. If that weren't the case, they would be forced to price them in line with Windows PCs in order to maintain sales.
The question shouldn't be, "Why does Apple charge so much more for Macs?", but rather, "Why are people willing to pay so much more for Macs?". It's not a tax at all, but rather a premium that Apple can successfully charge because people consider Macs to be worth the money they cost. If people didn't feel that way, they wouldn't buy them.
aiqw9182
Apr 5, 05:48 PM
Yes it does. It supplies a small amount of power to polarise the electret mic in the headset.
No, it doesn't. The line-in port does not supply power for a microphone.
No, it doesn't. The line-in port does not supply power for a microphone.
thatisme
Mar 29, 12:37 PM
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-is-lens-review.aspx
go down to COMPARED ..
now roll over the images.. if you tell me that that 55-250 shot is a 1.6 crop and the 70-X shots are very different you DO live on another plant (the 55-250 shot was manualy zoomed to match the 70-X shot hence the SLIGHT difference in focal length).. I am assuming same camera..as the review is about the lens and the FoV is too close to be recreated beteen full frame and crop.
you are twisting things nicely around now..
@Cliff, my bad I remember seen the high speed crop also on the D3 series but I might be wrong. The D700 however does have a crop but also allows you to shoot your DX lens on full frame (which will vignette) but has no speed increase over the full frame mode.
Thatisme:
It is kind of funny how you try to wiggle yourself out of this though...
We (a buddy and me here, pro photographer but you would dismiss this anyway as him not knowing either, are having a great time with your "knowledge" and your way of going from the 200mm debacle to IMAGE... and no, the image will still not be different between an EF-s and an EF lens at the same focal length on the same body.
End of story..if you are so sure.. why don't YOU prove ME wrong? you posted 1 picture of a modified 5d, which wasnt even yours. there is no 10mm on full frame (hence the vigneting) so you would have to shoot that 52 with the 10-22 at 22mm and then use a full frame 22 milimeter lens and compare it, because you ARE arguing, at least now, that the image will be different. It won't except for the vignetting.. re-read your own statements from before and watch how you ended up now on the "image" :)
Don't worry, by Monday I will prove it to you but why don't you prove me wrong before?.. I dare you.
EF-s lens and EF (or DX and FX for me) at the same focal length on the same camera, same f stop, same shutter speed... Exif data intact.
To the OP: I have to apologize for this and this is the last post related to Thats me from my side:
To answer your question: EF-s is cheaper as stated before the mess and is targeted specifically for the crop sensor bodies. You CAN fit both EF-s and EF on a crop sensor body and you will get the same image. EF lenses are just made for full frame as also stated before.
sorry for the mess.
With your link provided, I agree there is a slight difference there, but as you said, you ASSUME that it was with the same camera.... That would be my assumption as well, however, that example hardly makes your case, as the 70mm had to be manually dialed in... a small change has a big effect at long distances.... just saying... Show it using a prime (can't) or at the long end of the lens where there is no room for error or adjustment (200mm example). Eliminate all variables.
So, quit your arguing and prove it with a real world example with your gear. I don't own any EF-S lenses anymore, so let's get that in the great wide open, so I can't run this comparison for you. There is a fundamental reason for that, which gets more to the point of the OP... Image quality is flat out crap as compared with Canon's L glass, which just so happens to be only in the EF mount. Right, wrong or somewhere in-between, this discussion has no bearing for me, since I will never own another EF-S lens anyway. To that point, I won't ever own a 1.6 crop camera again either, for what it's worth.
I have no further interest in this discussion, so have fun. Enjoy.
go down to COMPARED ..
now roll over the images.. if you tell me that that 55-250 shot is a 1.6 crop and the 70-X shots are very different you DO live on another plant (the 55-250 shot was manualy zoomed to match the 70-X shot hence the SLIGHT difference in focal length).. I am assuming same camera..as the review is about the lens and the FoV is too close to be recreated beteen full frame and crop.
you are twisting things nicely around now..
@Cliff, my bad I remember seen the high speed crop also on the D3 series but I might be wrong. The D700 however does have a crop but also allows you to shoot your DX lens on full frame (which will vignette) but has no speed increase over the full frame mode.
Thatisme:
It is kind of funny how you try to wiggle yourself out of this though...
We (a buddy and me here, pro photographer but you would dismiss this anyway as him not knowing either, are having a great time with your "knowledge" and your way of going from the 200mm debacle to IMAGE... and no, the image will still not be different between an EF-s and an EF lens at the same focal length on the same body.
End of story..if you are so sure.. why don't YOU prove ME wrong? you posted 1 picture of a modified 5d, which wasnt even yours. there is no 10mm on full frame (hence the vigneting) so you would have to shoot that 52 with the 10-22 at 22mm and then use a full frame 22 milimeter lens and compare it, because you ARE arguing, at least now, that the image will be different. It won't except for the vignetting.. re-read your own statements from before and watch how you ended up now on the "image" :)
Don't worry, by Monday I will prove it to you but why don't you prove me wrong before?.. I dare you.
EF-s lens and EF (or DX and FX for me) at the same focal length on the same camera, same f stop, same shutter speed... Exif data intact.
To the OP: I have to apologize for this and this is the last post related to Thats me from my side:
To answer your question: EF-s is cheaper as stated before the mess and is targeted specifically for the crop sensor bodies. You CAN fit both EF-s and EF on a crop sensor body and you will get the same image. EF lenses are just made for full frame as also stated before.
sorry for the mess.
With your link provided, I agree there is a slight difference there, but as you said, you ASSUME that it was with the same camera.... That would be my assumption as well, however, that example hardly makes your case, as the 70mm had to be manually dialed in... a small change has a big effect at long distances.... just saying... Show it using a prime (can't) or at the long end of the lens where there is no room for error or adjustment (200mm example). Eliminate all variables.
So, quit your arguing and prove it with a real world example with your gear. I don't own any EF-S lenses anymore, so let's get that in the great wide open, so I can't run this comparison for you. There is a fundamental reason for that, which gets more to the point of the OP... Image quality is flat out crap as compared with Canon's L glass, which just so happens to be only in the EF mount. Right, wrong or somewhere in-between, this discussion has no bearing for me, since I will never own another EF-S lens anyway. To that point, I won't ever own a 1.6 crop camera again either, for what it's worth.
I have no further interest in this discussion, so have fun. Enjoy.
jessica.
Oct 27, 02:38 PM
Why spend the money if there is no market?
Source URL: https://bestcellebrity.blogspot.com/2011/06/most-popular-short-hairstyles_07.html
Visit Best cellebrity for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection
No comments:
Post a Comment