- 2011 prom hairstyle. Long hair
- 2011 Long Wavy Hairstyles-Long
- 2011 Blonde Long Curly
- Drew Barrymore Hairstyles; Long Curly Hair Styles 2011. Try Long Curly Hairstyles; Try Long Curly Hairstyles
- Long Wavy Hairstyles 2011
- hairstyles 2011 long curly.
- celebrity long wavy hairstyles
- Long Curly Hair Prom Styles
- Celebrity Long Curly Hairstyle
- Selena Gomez Long Curly
- Curly Hairstyles 2011
- Long Curly Hairstyles
- Long Wavy Hairstyle Pictures
- long hairstyles with bangs and
- Celebrity Long Curly Hairstyle
- halle berry hairstyles 2011.
- 2011 Curly haircuts
- hairstyles 2011 long curly.
- Long Wavy Hairstyle,Long
ergle2
Aug 27, 07:41 PM
HI!
Anyone knows if jointly with this rumor is the rumor of the upgrade of graphic cards on MacBook (not Pro) to Intel GMA 965 (I think is this the reference...)?
Thanks!
From the benchmarks I've seen, the 3000/X3000 stuff (the 965 integrated graphics) is *slower* than the 945 integrated graphics. The only advantage it offers is SM 3.0 (pixel shaders), which are required for Vista compliance -- and that nice little sticker that all new PC systems will want for this holiday season. I wouldn't consider it an upgrade.
Anyone knows if jointly with this rumor is the rumor of the upgrade of graphic cards on MacBook (not Pro) to Intel GMA 965 (I think is this the reference...)?
Thanks!
From the benchmarks I've seen, the 3000/X3000 stuff (the 965 integrated graphics) is *slower* than the 945 integrated graphics. The only advantage it offers is SM 3.0 (pixel shaders), which are required for Vista compliance -- and that nice little sticker that all new PC systems will want for this holiday season. I wouldn't consider it an upgrade.
SevenInchScrew
Dec 8, 12:05 PM
Actually, Sony explained that the damage is not unlocked or progressive as one dives deeper into the game. It's just that as one goes further into the game, one is able to FINALLY collect more premium cars which do have the better damage engine.
This is exactly opposite to what I've read and seen in the game.
This is exactly opposite to what I've read and seen in the game.
alent1234
Apr 11, 02:42 PM
That is what the 49$ 3GS is for...
My buddy just got one the other day. Why cause it was 49 bucks...
and i got an HTC INspire for $20 that is better than my old 3GS
My buddy just got one the other day. Why cause it was 49 bucks...
and i got an HTC INspire for $20 that is better than my old 3GS
Rodimus Prime
Mar 22, 04:14 PM
honestly I like the smaller 7in size for tablets. 10 ins is just a little to large for my task.
For me size requirements is something that can fit into a coat pocket/ outside pocket of my backpack.
Both of which a 10in tablet is just to large for but a 7 in is a great sweet spot for it.
For me size requirements is something that can fit into a coat pocket/ outside pocket of my backpack.
Both of which a 10in tablet is just to large for but a 7 in is a great sweet spot for it.
iMacoo7
Jun 8, 06:14 PM
So I wonder if Wally World is going to be doing the same thing? I did my usual camp out last year. There is a Walmart like 30 seconds walking distance from the ATT store. If this is the case then I will be camping out in the Walmart which is 24/7
samcraig
Apr 27, 09:26 AM
After an issue has arose and been debated to death and then even after the manufacturer has addressed the concerns of the paranoid, it is time to give it a rest.
But then when those who wish to beat what should now be a dead horse into little bitty pieces continue, then yes you are correct. Maybe whiner is not the correct title for these people. ;)
It's still news. The response came within the last 24 hours. If people are still debating this a few weeks from now - you can call them whiners... but it's current events in my opinion.
But then when those who wish to beat what should now be a dead horse into little bitty pieces continue, then yes you are correct. Maybe whiner is not the correct title for these people. ;)
It's still news. The response came within the last 24 hours. If people are still debating this a few weeks from now - you can call them whiners... but it's current events in my opinion.
cmaier
Apr 20, 11:58 AM
According to the analysis, it is in the suit, as part of the trade dress claims.
Not as a separate thing. It's the grid IN COMBINATION with the other things that constitutes the trade dress.
Not as a separate thing. It's the grid IN COMBINATION with the other things that constitutes the trade dress.
skunk
Feb 28, 07:12 PM
2) okay, they can pretend to get marriedNo, you are absolutely wrong., They can get married like any other couple where the laws allow. Marriage is not a special preserve of any religion. You cannot just commandeer it.
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
tk421
Nov 29, 10:44 AM
If all of you on here bought all of your music either from iTunes or from a record store, then, absolutely, complain away if that dollar is passed on to you. But, which is likely in just about every case, you have a few songs you burned off a friend's CD or downloaded from a file-sharing site, then shut up, you are the reason this is necessary.
I guess I understand this. We all pay a little more on purchases to make up for shoplifting. But all of my music is legal, and I think this is a very bad move.
As others have pointed out, I doubt any of this money will actually end up in the hands of artists. And who decides which artists? And what about smaller labels? Nobody will be compensating them. My brother is unsigned. Who will pay him for the illegal copies of his music that I know exist? It seems to me, the artists getting the money (if any do) will be the ones that already sell the most and therefore are struggling the least.
To be clear, I strongly oppose stealing music. I also strongly oppose calling all music listeners thieves and charging us all for it. And I'm all for the blacklist, and I'll gladly tell Universal I'm through with their music!
Universal Music Group:
USA (212) 841 8000
France +33 1 44 41 91 91
UK +44 0 20 77 47 4000
feedback_fr@vivendi.com
I guess I understand this. We all pay a little more on purchases to make up for shoplifting. But all of my music is legal, and I think this is a very bad move.
As others have pointed out, I doubt any of this money will actually end up in the hands of artists. And who decides which artists? And what about smaller labels? Nobody will be compensating them. My brother is unsigned. Who will pay him for the illegal copies of his music that I know exist? It seems to me, the artists getting the money (if any do) will be the ones that already sell the most and therefore are struggling the least.
To be clear, I strongly oppose stealing music. I also strongly oppose calling all music listeners thieves and charging us all for it. And I'm all for the blacklist, and I'll gladly tell Universal I'm through with their music!
Universal Music Group:
USA (212) 841 8000
France +33 1 44 41 91 91
UK +44 0 20 77 47 4000
feedback_fr@vivendi.com
Fabio_gsilva
Jul 27, 03:47 PM
How about a new Mac at WWDC?
Lower Model:
CConroe E6300 - 1.86 GHz � FSB1066 � 2 MB cache - ($185)
1GB RAM
160GB Serial ATA hard drive
Double-layer SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD�RW/CD-RW)
One open PCI-Express expansion slot
One open Optical drive slot [maybe] (i.e. for 2nd DVD drive)
Graphics Card with 128MB SDRAM
Built-in AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0, USB/FW800
Remote [(?] I think this box will still be small enough to fit into home entertainment setups.]
Keyboard, Mighty Mouse...................................................... $999
Some Options:
Conroe E6600 - 2.40 GHz � FSB1066 � 4 MB cache � (+$100)
Wireless Keyboard/Mouse +$60
Add DVD/CD ROM drive (in 2nd slot) + $50
250GB SATA hard drive +$75
+1GB RAM (2GB total) +$100
+3GB RAM (4GB total) +$300
Slightly Better Graphics Card with 256MB SDRAM + $50
Much Better Graphics Card +$200+
http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/9648/macandmacminipx9.jpg
Very nice, indeed... (of course, i expect that Apple release something much more beautiful than waht you did :D :p :D)
Lower Model:
CConroe E6300 - 1.86 GHz � FSB1066 � 2 MB cache - ($185)
1GB RAM
160GB Serial ATA hard drive
Double-layer SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD�RW/CD-RW)
One open PCI-Express expansion slot
One open Optical drive slot [maybe] (i.e. for 2nd DVD drive)
Graphics Card with 128MB SDRAM
Built-in AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0, USB/FW800
Remote [(?] I think this box will still be small enough to fit into home entertainment setups.]
Keyboard, Mighty Mouse...................................................... $999
Some Options:
Conroe E6600 - 2.40 GHz � FSB1066 � 4 MB cache � (+$100)
Wireless Keyboard/Mouse +$60
Add DVD/CD ROM drive (in 2nd slot) + $50
250GB SATA hard drive +$75
+1GB RAM (2GB total) +$100
+3GB RAM (4GB total) +$300
Slightly Better Graphics Card with 256MB SDRAM + $50
Much Better Graphics Card +$200+
http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/9648/macandmacminipx9.jpg
Very nice, indeed... (of course, i expect that Apple release something much more beautiful than waht you did :D :p :D)
wpotere
Apr 28, 06:45 AM
Wow, this thread and the ridiculous nature of this issue are hilarious. Seriously, you wonder why the US is going down the pan when the entire nation seems to get caught up in a fight over a bloody birth certificate?
Amusing isn't it?
Amusing isn't it?
MacSawdust
Aug 26, 10:40 AM
This nows explains why mine is not valid.
SeanM
Mar 26, 02:04 AM
I think Apple will probably charge $79 for Lion and distribute it via the Mac App Store (at least as an option).
Same price as the iLife suite and smack dab in the middle of Leopard ($129) and Snow Leopard's pricing ($29). That'd be the sweet spot IMO.
Same price as the iLife suite and smack dab in the middle of Leopard ($129) and Snow Leopard's pricing ($29). That'd be the sweet spot IMO.
skunk
Apr 27, 01:17 PM
(insert here where some smart-A responds with "slavery?" or something equally inapplicable)Me first! I'll do it!
jayducharme
Jun 8, 06:57 PM
You've got questions. We've got transistors.
Do they? I thought they phased them out, along with most of the other electronic hobbyist items that they alone used to carry.
Well, I guess the more vendors who carry the iPhone, the better. But The Shack would be the last place I'd go to get one. (I used to work there....) But I guess if it's the only electronics store in a particular town, that might be a way for Apple to get iPhones into the hands of people who might not otherwise buy one.
Do they? I thought they phased them out, along with most of the other electronic hobbyist items that they alone used to carry.
Well, I guess the more vendors who carry the iPhone, the better. But The Shack would be the last place I'd go to get one. (I used to work there....) But I guess if it's the only electronics store in a particular town, that might be a way for Apple to get iPhones into the hands of people who might not otherwise buy one.
fastlane1588
Jul 27, 12:19 PM
thats a pretty cool concept i must say
GermanSuplex
Jun 23, 03:38 PM
Same story here: I got the call today that despite being the first and only one on the reservation list at my store, they will not have any iPhones tomorrow.
I'm not surprised, but yeah... Radio Shack shouldn't have even bothered announcing anything.
I'm not surprised, but yeah... Radio Shack shouldn't have even bothered announcing anything.
BaldiMac
Apr 19, 03:20 PM
You're wrong. Apple is losing marketshare for over 2 years now. Just because they are selling MORE iPhones doesn't mean they are gaining marketshare. The market grows much faster than the iPhone sales. Have a look at Nokia: In Q4/10 Nokia sold almost 7 million more smartphones but they lost about 10% marketshare.
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=985912
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1372013
iPhone Worldwide smartphone market share
Q1 2008 5.3%
Q1 2009 10.8%
Q1 2010 15.4%
Q1 2011 ???
How have they been losing market share for two years now?
In Q1/11 Apple lost about 2% marketshare despite the fact that they sold about 2.5 million more iPhones. Just read the latest GfK numbers (needs registered account), it's all in there. NDP numbers for Q1/11 will be released next week if you trust them more.
2.5 million more? Apple has likely sold more than double then number of iPhones in q1 2011 than q1 2010 (8.75 million).
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=985912
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1372013
iPhone Worldwide smartphone market share
Q1 2008 5.3%
Q1 2009 10.8%
Q1 2010 15.4%
Q1 2011 ???
How have they been losing market share for two years now?
In Q1/11 Apple lost about 2% marketshare despite the fact that they sold about 2.5 million more iPhones. Just read the latest GfK numbers (needs registered account), it's all in there. NDP numbers for Q1/11 will be released next week if you trust them more.
2.5 million more? Apple has likely sold more than double then number of iPhones in q1 2011 than q1 2010 (8.75 million).
shawnce
Nov 28, 07:05 PM
I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth? Huh?
Apple pays the record labels for every song sold via iTMS, a vast majority of the "99 cents" for a song goes to the record labels (or direct to independent artist). iTMS is providing a new sales channel with effectively zero cost to the record labels (one that avoids manufacturing, shipping and stocking of physical units). This is a totally NEW revenue stream that arguable provides the record labels more bang for their buck then prior revenue streams and it is arguable more secure from copyright violations then prior revenue streams (FairPlay DRM). It also more directly connects customers with music (easy to do impulse purchases, etc.).
Now for the other half of your statement... just why should record companies get money for every iPod sold? This type of thinking is in some ways similar to demanding that paint manufactures should get a cut of the profits of every paint brush sold.
As a side note... I support the record companies/artist going after major copyright violators using legal proceedings.
Apple pays the record labels for every song sold via iTMS, a vast majority of the "99 cents" for a song goes to the record labels (or direct to independent artist). iTMS is providing a new sales channel with effectively zero cost to the record labels (one that avoids manufacturing, shipping and stocking of physical units). This is a totally NEW revenue stream that arguable provides the record labels more bang for their buck then prior revenue streams and it is arguable more secure from copyright violations then prior revenue streams (FairPlay DRM). It also more directly connects customers with music (easy to do impulse purchases, etc.).
Now for the other half of your statement... just why should record companies get money for every iPod sold? This type of thinking is in some ways similar to demanding that paint manufactures should get a cut of the profits of every paint brush sold.
As a side note... I support the record companies/artist going after major copyright violators using legal proceedings.
bassfingers
Apr 27, 01:13 PM
Where's the extremism?
obamacare in its smallest form is extreme
stimulus bill is extreme (and extrememly $$)
The extreme people he hires, etc.
Don't lose faith in his craziness just because he's postponed driving our country into the ground.
And it's a good thing he showed his birth certificate. How embarrassing would it be for us to look back, and the man who did all the damage wasn't even born here?
If you want america to be like europe. Go to europe and pretend you're in america. Don't jack up America for those of us who love it for what it was founded on.
(insert here where some smart-A responds with "slavery?" or something equally inapplicable)
obamacare in its smallest form is extreme
stimulus bill is extreme (and extrememly $$)
The extreme people he hires, etc.
Don't lose faith in his craziness just because he's postponed driving our country into the ground.
And it's a good thing he showed his birth certificate. How embarrassing would it be for us to look back, and the man who did all the damage wasn't even born here?
If you want america to be like europe. Go to europe and pretend you're in america. Don't jack up America for those of us who love it for what it was founded on.
(insert here where some smart-A responds with "slavery?" or something equally inapplicable)
khollister
Mar 22, 01:37 PM
Yeah a 50% smaller screen for the same price and less battery life is certainly going to crush the iPad2.
Plus RIM's usually obtuse software - I hate my company BlackBerry
Plus RIM's usually obtuse software - I hate my company BlackBerry
samcraig
Apr 27, 09:32 AM
How is the talk of slower performance because the database isn't as large any different than the discussion about the data in the first place.
Several people were criticizing people for having tin foil hats when it came to what the data was being used for, etc
And now the same people are wearing the same tin foil hats/complaining about some mythological "slow down" by having a smaller database.
Hypocrisy LOL
Several people were criticizing people for having tin foil hats when it came to what the data was being used for, etc
And now the same people are wearing the same tin foil hats/complaining about some mythological "slow down" by having a smaller database.
Hypocrisy LOL
edoates
Apr 7, 11:27 AM
'
Wake up and smell the coffee... BR is the main distribution method for paid HD content in the world. Also the quality is far better then with any download service.
And I'm going to point out again: 1080p BluRay movies are about 30GB each for a full length movie, not counting the "extras." Even if Netflix et al allowed such quality downloads, most ISPs have a maximum monthly bandwidth limit that is not prominently mentioned when you sign up, but exists none the less (for Comcast Cable, it's 250GB).
If you have only DSL, that's not a big issue because at 3mbs or so, you might not be able to download 250GB in a month ;-) But at 20 to 50mbs with cable, or if Google's 1gbs fiber connections work out, that's only 10 movies a month.
I'd love to see network delivery of everything - cancel Directv, etc., but with the extant bandwidth limitations, I don't think it happening.
BluRay lives.
Eddie O
Wake up and smell the coffee... BR is the main distribution method for paid HD content in the world. Also the quality is far better then with any download service.
And I'm going to point out again: 1080p BluRay movies are about 30GB each for a full length movie, not counting the "extras." Even if Netflix et al allowed such quality downloads, most ISPs have a maximum monthly bandwidth limit that is not prominently mentioned when you sign up, but exists none the less (for Comcast Cable, it's 250GB).
If you have only DSL, that's not a big issue because at 3mbs or so, you might not be able to download 250GB in a month ;-) But at 20 to 50mbs with cable, or if Google's 1gbs fiber connections work out, that's only 10 movies a month.
I'd love to see network delivery of everything - cancel Directv, etc., but with the extant bandwidth limitations, I don't think it happening.
BluRay lives.
Eddie O
Flowbee
Aug 11, 10:28 AM
Arrrggh... too many conflicting rumors make my head a splode. :eek:
Post Title
→hairstyles 2011 long curly
Post URL
→http://celebritygossiep.blogspot.com/2011/05/hairstyles-2011-long-curly_24.html
Visit Celebrity Gossip for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection
No comments:
Post a Comment