Winni
Apr 1, 08:44 AM
2011. People are still watching TV? Scary.
roadbloc
Dec 21, 06:08 AM
There is absolutely zero logic to the rest of your post either. How has this helped the music industry exactly?
Like i said above, without the RATM thing, only a few thousand people would have bought Joe's single and practically no-one would have bought RATM. Having some competition, inspired people to buy the song they liked. More people bought Joe's and RATM's music than if there would be no 'rebellious campaign'. More money in a industry makes it a lot healthier. Especially for Sony.
As I have said all along, the UK chart is a glorified popularity contest. The most popular record, at the time, wins.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that the general idea of the charts? :confused:
People don't just buy the xfactor winners single because of the name - they buy it because they like it (and it's usually more than a few thousand btw)
Since the demise of the chart show and top of the pops in the UK, the xfactor is really the only music show on telly. Meaning that it is all that the TV viewers see. The common working person who slumps on the couch, tired on saturday night, and watches the xfactor, isn't going to spend their time searching for other music available, when the music comes easy on the TV. With no other music on such a big TV show, it gives the xfactor a kind of a monopoly.
They may like it, but in their eyes (or ears), it's the only thing to like, because they simply don't have the time or the interest to search different genre's of music.
There has also been no significant reduction in music piracy as a result of this campaign - I guarantee it.
But I can guarantee more people have bought music. I certainly have.
There has been no 'rebellion'.
Yes there was. If there was no rebellion, RATM would not have even been suggest for xmas number 1.
Like i said above, without the RATM thing, only a few thousand people would have bought Joe's single and practically no-one would have bought RATM. Having some competition, inspired people to buy the song they liked. More people bought Joe's and RATM's music than if there would be no 'rebellious campaign'. More money in a industry makes it a lot healthier. Especially for Sony.
As I have said all along, the UK chart is a glorified popularity contest. The most popular record, at the time, wins.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that the general idea of the charts? :confused:
People don't just buy the xfactor winners single because of the name - they buy it because they like it (and it's usually more than a few thousand btw)
Since the demise of the chart show and top of the pops in the UK, the xfactor is really the only music show on telly. Meaning that it is all that the TV viewers see. The common working person who slumps on the couch, tired on saturday night, and watches the xfactor, isn't going to spend their time searching for other music available, when the music comes easy on the TV. With no other music on such a big TV show, it gives the xfactor a kind of a monopoly.
They may like it, but in their eyes (or ears), it's the only thing to like, because they simply don't have the time or the interest to search different genre's of music.
There has also been no significant reduction in music piracy as a result of this campaign - I guarantee it.
But I can guarantee more people have bought music. I certainly have.
There has been no 'rebellion'.
Yes there was. If there was no rebellion, RATM would not have even been suggest for xmas number 1.
bella92108
Apr 1, 01:40 PM
What they do in other countries has nothing to do with how they would do it in the USA. Do you seriously think the cable companies would introduce a choice where they stand to lose money? There's no way, unless the FCC forced them, that this would happen.
Also, $1/channel is way too low. Just because you can get 10 channels for $60, doesn't mean each channel would be priced at 60 cents. IIRC, a popular channel like ESPN costs the cable provider $4/subscriber ... and that's with Disney forcing the whole ABC/ESPN/Disney package of channels onto the cable co.
If ALC does happen, I would guess that most people would pay the same or more than they currently do. A small percentage may pay less, but it really depends on what channels they pick (and whether those channels survive).
It's a con when channels that focus on specific programming are forced to close up or offer the same old crap that everyone else does. For instance, a channel like BET may not survive to provide focused programming to the African American community because they would likely lose over half their subscriber base.
This isn't the goal of diverse television programming. Take a look at Obama's position on ALC. This is what I'm referring to.
As for letting the less popular networks whither, I do see this as a con. Networks will need to appeal to a broader audience in order to compete. Get ready for 15 channels showing the same formuliac sitcom. 20 channels of reality TV shows. 10 channels of daytime/social talk shows. 15 channels of sports. And 13 channels of news. No room for channels like History Channel or Discovery Health ... as they'll morph into a TNT or SpikeTV.
So I pay $60 a month and get all of the channels you mentioned above:
SpikeTV - Unsubscribe Please
TNT - Unsubscribe Please
History Channel - Unsubscribe Please
Discovery Health - Unsubscribe Please
BET - Unsubscribe Please
ESPN - Unsubscribe Please
ABC Family - Unsubscribe Please
Disney - Unsubscribe Please
I'll take:
Discovery
TBS
Comedy Central
A&E
CNN
HGTV
I'd gladly pay $5 per channel knowing those channels are supported and any funding is stripped from the others. That'd half my monthly bill, and $5 a channel is more than fair, right?
If the others can't appeal to their subscribers, bye bye crap channels.
But PS - All of the above is utterly irrelevant. These cable channels are ADVERTISEMENT supported, like newspapers, NOT subscription supported.... so they'd fail because they could no longer sell false numbers of "potential viewers" anymore, so they'd fail because they suck, not because they don't make money from subscribers.
Also, $1/channel is way too low. Just because you can get 10 channels for $60, doesn't mean each channel would be priced at 60 cents. IIRC, a popular channel like ESPN costs the cable provider $4/subscriber ... and that's with Disney forcing the whole ABC/ESPN/Disney package of channels onto the cable co.
If ALC does happen, I would guess that most people would pay the same or more than they currently do. A small percentage may pay less, but it really depends on what channels they pick (and whether those channels survive).
It's a con when channels that focus on specific programming are forced to close up or offer the same old crap that everyone else does. For instance, a channel like BET may not survive to provide focused programming to the African American community because they would likely lose over half their subscriber base.
This isn't the goal of diverse television programming. Take a look at Obama's position on ALC. This is what I'm referring to.
As for letting the less popular networks whither, I do see this as a con. Networks will need to appeal to a broader audience in order to compete. Get ready for 15 channels showing the same formuliac sitcom. 20 channels of reality TV shows. 10 channels of daytime/social talk shows. 15 channels of sports. And 13 channels of news. No room for channels like History Channel or Discovery Health ... as they'll morph into a TNT or SpikeTV.
So I pay $60 a month and get all of the channels you mentioned above:
SpikeTV - Unsubscribe Please
TNT - Unsubscribe Please
History Channel - Unsubscribe Please
Discovery Health - Unsubscribe Please
BET - Unsubscribe Please
ESPN - Unsubscribe Please
ABC Family - Unsubscribe Please
Disney - Unsubscribe Please
I'll take:
Discovery
TBS
Comedy Central
A&E
CNN
HGTV
I'd gladly pay $5 per channel knowing those channels are supported and any funding is stripped from the others. That'd half my monthly bill, and $5 a channel is more than fair, right?
If the others can't appeal to their subscribers, bye bye crap channels.
But PS - All of the above is utterly irrelevant. These cable channels are ADVERTISEMENT supported, like newspapers, NOT subscription supported.... so they'd fail because they could no longer sell false numbers of "potential viewers" anymore, so they'd fail because they suck, not because they don't make money from subscribers.
Dreadnought
Jun 25, 08:23 PM
I always new we have an old version of the widget, it doens't surprise me that you already have an alfa version, but 2.5... :D
more...
kmiahali
Dec 28, 11:32 AM
This is another one of AT&Ts stupid moves alongside their battle wit Verizon and their boring commercials with Luke Wilson...
London Lad
Nov 27, 02:49 AM
Ouch!, I guess :apple: are on to it!
Why ?
Why ?
more...
Cinch
Nov 14, 12:59 PM
What will the future of air travel holds?
1. Boomless supersonic jet (NYC to LAX in 2.5 hours).
2. inexpensive jetblue/southwest flight in continent, price point $200 round trip, todays money of course
3. weight/bag restriction to increase fuel economy-saving us money
4. packing sardines even tighter allowing more seats (I hope this will not come to pass).
5. computer/machine pilot (yes, they can handle landing and take-off)--eliminating overpaid pilots and terrorism too
6. no food service (don't worry no one will starve to death, we are in a middle of a obesity epidemic for god sake)- saving weight and money
7. reduce flight attendance by at least 50% (no food see above), and add a "useful" security guard to control rowdy passenger - saving us money
If you can't reduce the weight of a LCD or OLED or whatever screen, don't add it to every seats. I think the future is clear and it looks like it will diverge into two paths. 1) basic travel that allows people to do it more frequently or 2) travel in comfort and pay more thus less frequent travel. I'm not talking about first class travel here.
Think about it, wouldn't you want to travel anywhere in the US more frequently say 7+ times a year, or 1 or 2 times a year and have all the amenities (meal, iPod, movies and overpaid pilots)?
Tune in your fear and imagine the possibility with me:D
Cinch
1. Boomless supersonic jet (NYC to LAX in 2.5 hours).
2. inexpensive jetblue/southwest flight in continent, price point $200 round trip, todays money of course
3. weight/bag restriction to increase fuel economy-saving us money
4. packing sardines even tighter allowing more seats (I hope this will not come to pass).
5. computer/machine pilot (yes, they can handle landing and take-off)--eliminating overpaid pilots and terrorism too
6. no food service (don't worry no one will starve to death, we are in a middle of a obesity epidemic for god sake)- saving weight and money
7. reduce flight attendance by at least 50% (no food see above), and add a "useful" security guard to control rowdy passenger - saving us money
If you can't reduce the weight of a LCD or OLED or whatever screen, don't add it to every seats. I think the future is clear and it looks like it will diverge into two paths. 1) basic travel that allows people to do it more frequently or 2) travel in comfort and pay more thus less frequent travel. I'm not talking about first class travel here.
Think about it, wouldn't you want to travel anywhere in the US more frequently say 7+ times a year, or 1 or 2 times a year and have all the amenities (meal, iPod, movies and overpaid pilots)?
Tune in your fear and imagine the possibility with me:D
Cinch
capsfan78
Mar 24, 06:08 AM
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.
Every officer I know has a gov't issued blackberry. The iphone and ipad don't necessarily need wifi to be of value.
Every officer I know has a gov't issued blackberry. The iphone and ipad don't necessarily need wifi to be of value.
more...
Nermal
Jun 11, 01:17 PM
My guess is that T-Mobile wasn't able to acquire enough 2100 spectrum to go both ways. That's just a guess though, and I don't know why it's not using 1700 in both directions.
rikers_mailbox
Nov 21, 04:42 PM
... sooo, a thermocouple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermocouple) on a chip? Thermocouples have horrendous efficiency. I don't see how a such a chip in an enclosed environment (like a laptop motherboard) can achieve enough of a thermal gradient to produce enough current to be useful.
I dunno, i'm skeptical.
I dunno, i'm skeptical.
more...
fourthtunz
Feb 19, 05:26 PM
If it is so insecure, why haven't we heard of all the peoplebeing ripped off where it's used quite extensively?
So with our media do you believe that you hear everything that goes on?
So with our media do you believe that you hear everything that goes on?
maclaptop
Apr 27, 12:47 AM
Coming soon to a theater near you, on a "Magical & Revolutionary" NEW technology by Apple: DVD
HA... HA... HA...
HA... HA... HA...
more...
Mr. Gates
Jun 12, 07:46 PM
Obvious Choice
crazzyeddie
May 1, 10:15 PM
https://discussions.apple.com/message/12732648#12732648
more...
alexf
Apr 2, 01:50 PM
*caugh, caugh* It's 1.0.1. Also, It's not so much that it has bugs are anything, I think it UI is horrible.
Yes, I think the UI is aweful too.
I'm glad I'm not alone in my feelings!
Yes, I think the UI is aweful too.
I'm glad I'm not alone in my feelings!
-Jeff
Oct 26, 01:47 PM
I think this is a special case. This appears to be a "lite" version of Adobe Audition, which Adobe bought from Syntrillium Software (Syntrillium called it Cool Edit Pro).
Cool Edit Pro was built from the ground up for the Intel architecture. At that time, Intel Macs didn't exist. Since there was no pre-existing PPC compatible version, they have decided not to create one.
Don't worry too much. New Mac applications and updates for applications that already have PPC versions will probably be released as Universal Binaries for years to come.
Cool Edit Pro was built from the ground up for the Intel architecture. At that time, Intel Macs didn't exist. Since there was no pre-existing PPC compatible version, they have decided not to create one.
Don't worry too much. New Mac applications and updates for applications that already have PPC versions will probably be released as Universal Binaries for years to come.
more...
abby0880
Sep 1, 04:02 AM
This is nice if it will only be made visible to your friends or if the application will allow you to choose who will know where your exact location is. However, if this is something dangerous, then maybe it will not be worth it. play australian pokies online (http://www.playonlinepokies.com.au/)
Porco
Mar 26, 03:27 PM
So Steve said "Let's go discuss this somewhere more private"?
Presumably Eric replied with "well maybe if you don't want people to know what we're doing, maybe we shouldn't be doing it!". :p
Presumably Eric replied with "well maybe if you don't want people to know what we're doing, maybe we shouldn't be doing it!". :p
mdelvecchio
Apr 5, 12:57 PM
Why cant people just (I know this sounds crazy) listen to CR when they make factually based reviews (i.e., iPhone 4 antenna design CAN lead to dropped calls). I hate this blind bias some folks have on here.
then how do you explain CR giving the nod to another smartphone that *also* demonstrates a deathgrip loss of signal? they all do. yet, there was no hoopla about the others. only iphone.
thats what yanks the rug of credibility out from under them.
then how do you explain CR giving the nod to another smartphone that *also* demonstrates a deathgrip loss of signal? they all do. yet, there was no hoopla about the others. only iphone.
thats what yanks the rug of credibility out from under them.
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.
flosseR
Mar 29, 09:31 AM
thatisme....give up.. you are trying in vain to recover from a grave mistake..
effectively you HAVE argued wrong:
Originally Posted by thatisme
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
This WILL in fact create the eEXACT same image... It does not matter what focal length it is, the SENSOR will create the image.. the only difference is that the EFs lens has a smaller image circle.. NOTHING ELSE changes!!! absolutely NOTHING. I don't get what your problem is.. the mm amount on the lens is what matters... if you only get a 1.6x crop out of the resulting image in comparison to a full 35mm frame has no relevance to the lens.
THE MILLIMETER OF THE ACTUAL FOCAL LENGTH ARE ALWAYS THE SAME!
end of story.
A canon 55-200 EF-s and a 70-200L lens at 200mm on a canon 7D will produce the exact same image...the same as if you would mount both lenses on a full frame body and crop the image by 1.6.
end of this meaningless discussion now.. geez
effectively you HAVE argued wrong:
Originally Posted by thatisme
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
This WILL in fact create the eEXACT same image... It does not matter what focal length it is, the SENSOR will create the image.. the only difference is that the EFs lens has a smaller image circle.. NOTHING ELSE changes!!! absolutely NOTHING. I don't get what your problem is.. the mm amount on the lens is what matters... if you only get a 1.6x crop out of the resulting image in comparison to a full 35mm frame has no relevance to the lens.
THE MILLIMETER OF THE ACTUAL FOCAL LENGTH ARE ALWAYS THE SAME!
end of story.
A canon 55-200 EF-s and a 70-200L lens at 200mm on a canon 7D will produce the exact same image...the same as if you would mount both lenses on a full frame body and crop the image by 1.6.
end of this meaningless discussion now.. geez
redscull
Apr 5, 12:40 PM
What iPad user can't figure out how to use iTunes to sync the thing? My 65-year old mother figured out how to sync her iPod classic. How is iPad syncing any different or more complicated than what people have been doing for a decade? iPad does not require a tech genius - or 12 year old kid - to keep it working.It's not about figuring it out. It's about having a computer period. A normal person doesn't own multiple computers. He owns a computer. He might not even have bought it himself, and certainly won't maintain multiple computers (nor will the person who gifted the computer). So once the tablet is the normal person's computer, it's going to be the only one he's using. Telling him he needs a second computer just to use his primary computer is unacceptable.
Example: My mom has a computer. It was a Christmas present from me one year. But now it's old, full of crap, and needs replacing. But instead of upgrading it, I got her an iPad. It meets all her computer needs (except printing). That old clunker is in no shape to run iTunes; it's hard drive isn't even as large as the iPad's! I certainly won't be upgrading her desktop just to let her sync her iPad, nor will she when she's happy using just the iPad. She gets updates on the occasions that I visit with my MBP.
The system works well enough; her iPad is her sole computer. But it requires that I, the tech relative, keep it updated.
Example: My mom has a computer. It was a Christmas present from me one year. But now it's old, full of crap, and needs replacing. But instead of upgrading it, I got her an iPad. It meets all her computer needs (except printing). That old clunker is in no shape to run iTunes; it's hard drive isn't even as large as the iPad's! I certainly won't be upgrading her desktop just to let her sync her iPad, nor will she when she's happy using just the iPad. She gets updates on the occasions that I visit with my MBP.
The system works well enough; her iPad is her sole computer. But it requires that I, the tech relative, keep it updated.
Tiauguinho
Sep 19, 01:57 PM
HEHEHEHE!!! That is great to see!!! Go PowerMac! Flame everything!
tknelson
Nov 10, 06:03 AM
I envision a market for some sort of faraday cage in an iPhone carrying case though grounding it maybe a challenge.
After-seller small business opportunity, become a chip remover or disabler perhaps.
1) A Faraday cage doesn't need to be grounded to work.
2) A "Faraday case" is a dumb idea. How would you receive calls?
3) The paranoid posts in the thread are stupid to the point of hilarity. Go live in an igloo somewhere, OK?
After-seller small business opportunity, become a chip remover or disabler perhaps.
1) A Faraday cage doesn't need to be grounded to work.
2) A "Faraday case" is a dumb idea. How would you receive calls?
3) The paranoid posts in the thread are stupid to the point of hilarity. Go live in an igloo somewhere, OK?
