neiltc13
Apr 1, 06:34 AM
I when to France once before. I remember the cheapest gas had an octane rating of 95 or so, the next level up was 98 octane. I'm assuming that regular in the UK is around 95 octane as well? That tops what get. Our gas starts at 87 octane and tops out at 93 octane for so called premium (about $0.40 per gallon more than regular where I'm at).
Anyhow, judging by how our gas is priced, it's about 2x what we pay here in the States. You win some (having better cars), you lose some (higher priced gas).
Yes 95 octane is the lowest and there are also brands like Shell V-Power and BP Ultimate that offer up to 102 octane.
I always go with the 95 octane version and my car gets about 41mpg (US) using this fuel.
Anyhow, judging by how our gas is priced, it's about 2x what we pay here in the States. You win some (having better cars), you lose some (higher priced gas).
Yes 95 octane is the lowest and there are also brands like Shell V-Power and BP Ultimate that offer up to 102 octane.
I always go with the 95 octane version and my car gets about 41mpg (US) using this fuel.
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
blacktape242
Feb 18, 04:56 PM
Or how about the lack of pictures? This had photo op written all over it, but we the taxpayer only get one picture? I think the number of pictures were limited due to Steve Jobs current condition.
could be possible i suppose....who knows.
could be possible i suppose....who knows.
gazmac
Aug 20, 09:23 AM
http://gallery.me.com/gazmac2/100014/Facebook%20spaces%20working%20in%20UK/web.png?ver=12823139770007Why does it work only in the US?
Actually I got it to work in the UK by using the virtual private network feature on my iPhone. Created a 'place' last night and was able to check-in, and saw my location posted on my wall, but as I was at home at the time I deleted the post. Doesn't seem to be a straightforward way to check out, although I guess I need to play around with it a bit more.
Created a few more 'places' on the way into work this morning at various train stations and at the little park where I eat lunch sometimes. Might check-in at the stations on the way home just so that my partner (she does facebook more than I) can have fun tracking me. Don't intend to use this service as I don't really want 'friends' (which includes my boss) knowing where I am all the time .
Actually I got it to work in the UK by using the virtual private network feature on my iPhone. Created a 'place' last night and was able to check-in, and saw my location posted on my wall, but as I was at home at the time I deleted the post. Doesn't seem to be a straightforward way to check out, although I guess I need to play around with it a bit more.
Created a few more 'places' on the way into work this morning at various train stations and at the little park where I eat lunch sometimes. Might check-in at the stations on the way home just so that my partner (she does facebook more than I) can have fun tracking me. Don't intend to use this service as I don't really want 'friends' (which includes my boss) knowing where I am all the time .
more...
JAT
Apr 13, 02:18 PM
If you have nothing setup it will use DHCP to get your DNS from whatever device is providing you your IP address. For most people this would be a DSL or cable modem which is passing the DNS servers from their ISP.
So not setting it up is not an issue, unless your ISPs DNS servers suck.
Frequently, I find the modem also has nothing set. Changing to any known DNS server speeds things up. You probably already did this years ago, you are a geek, no?
But how do you know if it sucks? How do you know if Google's DNS servers are actually an improvment for you? You can't know until you test. There are several DNS test utilities you can download that will measure this for you and tell you. I highly suggest people not assume that using Google's DNS servers is always best. For some people it will actually perform worse. Test to know for sure.
I agree, I never said anything about Google DNS or to not include some thought in the process. What I said is most people have a mess that should be addressed. Whenever I see, "internet is slow", I think, "check your DNS".
So not setting it up is not an issue, unless your ISPs DNS servers suck.
Frequently, I find the modem also has nothing set. Changing to any known DNS server speeds things up. You probably already did this years ago, you are a geek, no?
But how do you know if it sucks? How do you know if Google's DNS servers are actually an improvment for you? You can't know until you test. There are several DNS test utilities you can download that will measure this for you and tell you. I highly suggest people not assume that using Google's DNS servers is always best. For some people it will actually perform worse. Test to know for sure.
I agree, I never said anything about Google DNS or to not include some thought in the process. What I said is most people have a mess that should be addressed. Whenever I see, "internet is slow", I think, "check your DNS".
King Cobra
Sep 14, 07:08 AM
>(MacBandit) First of all what do you consider great boot times? Not that this matters a lot. I have a new Dual Ghz/DDR and it starts from cold boot to login in screen in 27secs with 10.2 and from login to operating finder is nearly instantaneous.
With 10.2, sure, boot time on the Mac has significantly improved. But I've noticed that with the PCs at PHHS the PCs boot in under a minute. But, just this past week I thought I logged out of one of the P3s and I actually restarted it. The restart to log-in, then to the OS was approximately the same as you said, MB. What would a computer with 3x/4x the GHz seem like?
>Second of all as I have stated before the true reason Mhz doesn't matter is because something like %98 of all computer users are not power users these are the people that will go buy a new computer tomorrow and if there is a 2.8Ghz computer sitting next to a 800Mhz computer they couldn't care they're going to buy the cheap one.
>(MacBandit, in a previous post) The people that really desire the speed at least most of them know the difference between Mhz and overall system speed.
My entire previous post, starting from the first lengthy paragraph was trying to explain why MHz doesn't matter. I agree with your point of view, but I am trying to expand the MHz/GHz speeds of a G4 to how it would compare against a P4 of ≈ same speed. My post had approximations, so that's why I say approximately equal to, not =. But my point is that the G4 can actually surpass the P4 at 3 or 4GHz speeds if the right apps are used.
>They don't even care how much ram it has. I know this because I went computer shopping with my boss for work(yes for a PC). He wanted my help. Well little help I was he bought the cheapest computer he could get with 64MB of Ram I suggested we upgrade it later and he agreed well that was 2 years ago still it sits with 64MB of RAM in it. Oh and I might add it still has all the stickers on the front of it.
Well I didn't mention RAM, but I will now. Try running OS X (even 10.1) on ANY computer with 128MB of RAM or less. I have with my iMac 233 (w/64MB of RAM) and my iBook 467 (with 128MB). The iMac was a complete drag. My iBook is rather slow, but it works fine. My Cube G4 has 1GB of RAM and must be at least 2 or 3 times faster than my iBook, depending on what tasks I perform.
>These people don't care about this stuff all it's used for is mail and the occasional websearch and most people are like this.
Now this brings up a different issue (as well as MHz): OS Stability. Sure, XP may have fixed *some* :snicker: of the errors from older versions of Win. Yet it still isn't totally stable.
Wherever there is a PC for that stuff, there is a low-end PowerMac for them. It's called an iMac. :cool:
With 10.2, sure, boot time on the Mac has significantly improved. But I've noticed that with the PCs at PHHS the PCs boot in under a minute. But, just this past week I thought I logged out of one of the P3s and I actually restarted it. The restart to log-in, then to the OS was approximately the same as you said, MB. What would a computer with 3x/4x the GHz seem like?
>Second of all as I have stated before the true reason Mhz doesn't matter is because something like %98 of all computer users are not power users these are the people that will go buy a new computer tomorrow and if there is a 2.8Ghz computer sitting next to a 800Mhz computer they couldn't care they're going to buy the cheap one.
>(MacBandit, in a previous post) The people that really desire the speed at least most of them know the difference between Mhz and overall system speed.
My entire previous post, starting from the first lengthy paragraph was trying to explain why MHz doesn't matter. I agree with your point of view, but I am trying to expand the MHz/GHz speeds of a G4 to how it would compare against a P4 of ≈ same speed. My post had approximations, so that's why I say approximately equal to, not =. But my point is that the G4 can actually surpass the P4 at 3 or 4GHz speeds if the right apps are used.
>They don't even care how much ram it has. I know this because I went computer shopping with my boss for work(yes for a PC). He wanted my help. Well little help I was he bought the cheapest computer he could get with 64MB of Ram I suggested we upgrade it later and he agreed well that was 2 years ago still it sits with 64MB of RAM in it. Oh and I might add it still has all the stickers on the front of it.
Well I didn't mention RAM, but I will now. Try running OS X (even 10.1) on ANY computer with 128MB of RAM or less. I have with my iMac 233 (w/64MB of RAM) and my iBook 467 (with 128MB). The iMac was a complete drag. My iBook is rather slow, but it works fine. My Cube G4 has 1GB of RAM and must be at least 2 or 3 times faster than my iBook, depending on what tasks I perform.
>These people don't care about this stuff all it's used for is mail and the occasional websearch and most people are like this.
Now this brings up a different issue (as well as MHz): OS Stability. Sure, XP may have fixed *some* :snicker: of the errors from older versions of Win. Yet it still isn't totally stable.
Wherever there is a PC for that stuff, there is a low-end PowerMac for them. It's called an iMac. :cool:
more...
Yannick
Sep 27, 09:54 AM
I checked the update pace for Mac OS X 10.4.
29/04/2005: 10.4.0
17/05/2005: 10.4.1 (+ 18 days)
12/07/2005: 10.4.2 (+ 56 days)
31/10/2005: 10.4.3 (+ 111 days)
11/01/2006: 10.4.4 (+ 72 days)
14/02/2006: 10.4.5 (+ 34 days)
03/04/2006: 10.4.6 (+ 48 days)
27/06/2006: 10.4.7 (+ 85 days)
27/09/2006 (today) + 92 days
Soon we'll have 10.4.8, and then probably around 3 months later 10.4.9 (January?). I doubt Apple will release 10.4.10, they could but I don't think they ever did it with another OS.
I thought first that it could mean that Leopard would be early, but I don't think so (spring 2007 is March 21 - June 21).
29/04/2005: 10.4.0
17/05/2005: 10.4.1 (+ 18 days)
12/07/2005: 10.4.2 (+ 56 days)
31/10/2005: 10.4.3 (+ 111 days)
11/01/2006: 10.4.4 (+ 72 days)
14/02/2006: 10.4.5 (+ 34 days)
03/04/2006: 10.4.6 (+ 48 days)
27/06/2006: 10.4.7 (+ 85 days)
27/09/2006 (today) + 92 days
Soon we'll have 10.4.8, and then probably around 3 months later 10.4.9 (January?). I doubt Apple will release 10.4.10, they could but I don't think they ever did it with another OS.
I thought first that it could mean that Leopard would be early, but I don't think so (spring 2007 is March 21 - June 21).
roadbloc
Feb 18, 10:47 AM
Notice Steve is the only guy without wine?
more...
iApples
Apr 4, 11:46 AM
Why don't we just give our full paycheck to the government each week. With all these stupid taxes, we're pretty much already doing this.
Laird Knox
Mar 5, 04:11 PM
I know I must be overtired ... I actually reached out and touched my screen to see if this was really 3-dimensional!
That made me chuckle, I've done that before myself. :)
Love it! My only qualm is how dark it is. If it had some more "pop" and was brightened up a bit I would be even more in love! Did you have lights inside that place?
Thanks! I find monitor gama really makes or breaks this one. Small changes in the can really darken it up quickly. I have printed it out at 20x30 and it really worked well in my opinion. I'm just finishing up some web site programing before I can get back into my photography. Once I do I plan on revisiting this one. I want to try printing it on both regular paper and metallic.
As for the lighthing I'm lucky I didn't break my neck that night. It was extreamly dark - no Moon and the cottages are wedged between some steep hills. I set the camera up on a tripod and took a couple of test shots for the framing. I just looked at the original images and there are only a couple of blurry images and one only lit from inside before this shot. I was using an old manual lens and must not have focused for the first couple but they were so dark it was hard to see on the LCD. (Still better than waiting for the film to develop.)
Once I had the angle I thought I wanted -- it was still hard to tell on the preview -- I set the camera for remote trigger with a three second delay. I triggered the cammera and when the shutter opened up I held a deep blue Rosco gel over a five watt LED flashlight and swept it across the front of the building a few times.
I then turned off the flashlight and dashed over the uneven ground into the room on the left. There I switched to a red gel and waved the light around the room for a couple of seconds. Then in the dark I ran around to the door and the room on the right. Here I again waved the flashlight around trying to give it an uneven wash. Then I stuck my head out the door and triggered the camera. The whole exposure was about 67 seconds.
In this shot you can see how uneven the ground was. ;)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhO6xN3RlGl0izQhovQzloGV0iCe6JY2RqB-nVU38U5MWbwHFfi939pYjp4oar62VFCiA3PfB2wbzthQShOj8kx2VFoJoOKP89pK8jPFwIIkuffISqPPZEgDuSfVxjeYm91JFwVHbd_8dQ/s500/paint2.jpg
In this and another shot from that night I used way too much light. I like the uneven texture of the red and blue image. The other two are just too flat. I do like the texture of the bricks in this one but overall I ruined the shot in my opinion. In the one above you can also see that I didn't have the flashlight fully covered. There is a bit of white light spilling in the foreground.
If I were to do it again I would try putting a strobe in each room. I would need to find something to breakup the flash to get the uneven wash -- maybe some bottle partially filled with water. Then I could use the flashlight for the front lighting and maybe another strobe or two set very low for some side fill.
Overall it was a fun exercise. I had wanted to do some light painting for a long time and I got really lucky for a first try at it.
That made me chuckle, I've done that before myself. :)
Love it! My only qualm is how dark it is. If it had some more "pop" and was brightened up a bit I would be even more in love! Did you have lights inside that place?
Thanks! I find monitor gama really makes or breaks this one. Small changes in the can really darken it up quickly. I have printed it out at 20x30 and it really worked well in my opinion. I'm just finishing up some web site programing before I can get back into my photography. Once I do I plan on revisiting this one. I want to try printing it on both regular paper and metallic.
As for the lighthing I'm lucky I didn't break my neck that night. It was extreamly dark - no Moon and the cottages are wedged between some steep hills. I set the camera up on a tripod and took a couple of test shots for the framing. I just looked at the original images and there are only a couple of blurry images and one only lit from inside before this shot. I was using an old manual lens and must not have focused for the first couple but they were so dark it was hard to see on the LCD. (Still better than waiting for the film to develop.)
Once I had the angle I thought I wanted -- it was still hard to tell on the preview -- I set the camera for remote trigger with a three second delay. I triggered the cammera and when the shutter opened up I held a deep blue Rosco gel over a five watt LED flashlight and swept it across the front of the building a few times.
I then turned off the flashlight and dashed over the uneven ground into the room on the left. There I switched to a red gel and waved the light around the room for a couple of seconds. Then in the dark I ran around to the door and the room on the right. Here I again waved the flashlight around trying to give it an uneven wash. Then I stuck my head out the door and triggered the camera. The whole exposure was about 67 seconds.
In this shot you can see how uneven the ground was. ;)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhO6xN3RlGl0izQhovQzloGV0iCe6JY2RqB-nVU38U5MWbwHFfi939pYjp4oar62VFCiA3PfB2wbzthQShOj8kx2VFoJoOKP89pK8jPFwIIkuffISqPPZEgDuSfVxjeYm91JFwVHbd_8dQ/s500/paint2.jpg
In this and another shot from that night I used way too much light. I like the uneven texture of the red and blue image. The other two are just too flat. I do like the texture of the bricks in this one but overall I ruined the shot in my opinion. In the one above you can also see that I didn't have the flashlight fully covered. There is a bit of white light spilling in the foreground.
If I were to do it again I would try putting a strobe in each room. I would need to find something to breakup the flash to get the uneven wash -- maybe some bottle partially filled with water. Then I could use the flashlight for the front lighting and maybe another strobe or two set very low for some side fill.
Overall it was a fun exercise. I had wanted to do some light painting for a long time and I got really lucky for a first try at it.
more...
netdog
Oct 27, 10:05 AM
You can still access the old webmail, look in the help section.
Old .Mac Email Browser Login Link (http://www.mac.com/WebObjects/Webmail1.woa/wa/EntryAction)
Old .Mac Email Browser Login Link (http://www.mac.com/WebObjects/Webmail1.woa/wa/EntryAction)
Susurs
Apr 20, 11:03 AM
I third that...Intel integrated 'thing' will never be in a product I buy (If it's the only GPU in mac and nothing else is there like with MacBook Pro where you can switch between graphics 'device'). :)
more...
Di9it8
Oct 21, 11:28 PM
But then we can all go to the pub :D
Or should that be the Leopard Lounge ;-) http://www.leopard-lounge.com/
Anyhow I hope to be there, maybe we should organise a mini flash mob or we should all wear Leopard scarves, bandanas etc ;)
Or should that be the Leopard Lounge ;-) http://www.leopard-lounge.com/
Anyhow I hope to be there, maybe we should organise a mini flash mob or we should all wear Leopard scarves, bandanas etc ;)
pil0tflame
Apr 20, 12:47 PM
I would personally benefit more from the increase in CPU power in Sandy Bridge than I would suffer from the weaker Intel IGP. I'm not purchasing a MBA to play 3d games or do 3d content creation. I have other electronics more specialized/suited to those tasks (console & desktop, respectively). What I would see a benefit in is audio/video encoding, file archive compression speeds, Photoshop editing, Illustrator content creation, CCS3/JavaScript animation and any other CPU reliant tasks. Of course any GPU accelerated tasks are a different matter entirely and would need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
That said, I may pick up a current gen MBA based simply on the fact that it's a known entity with a generally positive and proven reputation. The hypothetical Sandy Bridge MBA could end up being a great product too, but then again it could be a flawed wreck. Only time will tell.
As I see it, the non-gamer would generally benefit from a Sandy Bridge MBA over a C2D one. Gamers on the other hand are typically limited by the GPU, not CPU, so would be better to stick with a nVidia 320M based Air.
That said, I may pick up a current gen MBA based simply on the fact that it's a known entity with a generally positive and proven reputation. The hypothetical Sandy Bridge MBA could end up being a great product too, but then again it could be a flawed wreck. Only time will tell.
As I see it, the non-gamer would generally benefit from a Sandy Bridge MBA over a C2D one. Gamers on the other hand are typically limited by the GPU, not CPU, so would be better to stick with a nVidia 320M based Air.
more...
Darkroom
Apr 16, 06:53 PM
way to stand by your principles by resubmitting :rolleyes:
JeffDM
Sep 27, 09:51 PM
If LEOPARD doesnt arrive until spring...
They certainly didn't promise it for the fall. They left quite a window, didn't they say 1H07? Let them get it right with good testing. With earlier Tiger revisions, I just went back to 10.3 until they had enough things working right. This will also be the longest time between major revisions, so that's probably going to mean more minor revisions.
They certainly didn't promise it for the fall. They left quite a window, didn't they say 1H07? Let them get it right with good testing. With earlier Tiger revisions, I just went back to 10.3 until they had enough things working right. This will also be the longest time between major revisions, so that's probably going to mean more minor revisions.
more...
redeye be
May 27, 07:57 PM
you can find your user number in the panel to the left of your profile, above user summary. In my case the number is 125107.
Thx for pointing this out, must have missed it somehow.
Added to the FAQ.
Good to know it runs in Amnesty!
Thx for pointing this out, must have missed it somehow.
Added to the FAQ.
Good to know it runs in Amnesty!
Santabean2000
Mar 28, 08:17 AM
Better late than never.
Now, if you could just please announce how far away new minis are...
Now, if you could just please announce how far away new minis are...
Sminman86
Apr 5, 09:52 AM
"Wipe yourself off, your bleeding."
Screen bleeds on the bottom left hand corner. My only gripe.
This device is amazing.
Screen bleeds on the bottom left hand corner. My only gripe.
This device is amazing.
twoodcc
Mar 8, 09:36 PM
thanks for the screenshots! i'm glad that lion server is included in lion. more people will use it, since it comes with lion.
alphaod
May 3, 12:13 PM
I just measured my iPhone 4 in black and white.
The white one is 9.0mm.
The black one is 9.3mm.
:confused:
The white one is 9.0mm.
The black one is 9.3mm.
:confused:
ct2k7
Apr 22, 09:40 PM
All this Mac vs PC subjective stereotyping is useless. [Cumulative] correlation does not mean causation.
See Flat
Apr 14, 03:05 PM
You can take they guy out of microsoft.
Lets just hope they can take microsoft out of the guy. ;)
Lets just hope they can take microsoft out of the guy. ;)
Rower_CPU
May 6, 01:24 AM
Chill out, springscansing. Either this guy is a troll, and not worth it, or he's actually looking for discussion and not a flamefest.
Give him a chance.
Give him a chance.
No comments:
Post a Comment