Picasa, 500px and "surely it would cost Microsoft less than the price of Yahoo! to develop their own", I'd say.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
The knowledge is shared. The only reason Samsung know that a device nobody other than a handful of journalists have held in their hands outside Apple is because it's impossible to implement standards without doing so. Those standards state that Samsung have to offer a licence under RAND principles to Apple, however, and they haven't done so.
Samsung have just pulled their pants down before challenging Apple to a "kicking each other in the balls" contest; not very wise.
Because some of us are planning on dumping it on cheapo netbooks, at least while it's just the pre-release Developer version?
It's not perfect, but from what I see he's not removing the big heatsink / fan assembly from the PS3, which encases the whole motherboard in a metal shell. So I don't think it's going to be much of an issue.
Kids these days. We played 4-player Asteroids on an Atari 400 and a 15" telly, and WE LIKED IT.
Fair enough on the PC to TV thing, I suppose. If others find it difficult, they find it difficult. Possibly because I'm a sad git, I've never bought a HDTV that couldn't take the VGA output from my Dreamcast, if nothing else. But it's still easier than getting good performance out of an emulator, which is what the grandparent was discussing.
21" monitors seem to be fairly standard for desktops these days, yes. Most decent-sized HDTVs have a VGA input. Most decent-quality graphics cards and gaming laptops have HDMI outputs, as well.
Hooking up a PC to a big telly is a piece of cake.
One of my TVs has 4 inputs, the other 1. Although I've got an auto-switching HDMI box to go with that one, anyway.
However, such a box would have been a trivial, and sensible, addition to the build I'd have said.
Well, quite. The crop factor on Canon DSLRs is 1.6, so a 200mm would be equivalent to 320mm on a Full Frame.
Umm, maybe I'm missing something. But given that iTunes is the application for syncing your iPhone with your computer, why were you (a) uninstalling in the first place, and then (b) suprised when you couldn't sync?
There are apps you can't remove under iOS - basically anything that comes pre-installed to the first screenful of stuff. App Store, iTunes (meaning the store, not your music), Game Center, Weather, Stocks, Face Time and YouTube all strike me as apps that not everyone would want, but can't be removed.
However, two ways that these are vastly better than the Sony instance is that none of them are running in the background stealing your CPU cycles and memory, and that all of them can be tucked away in an "undeletable crap" folder if their icons offend you.
True, true. All I really meant was that I'm one of the 35%, because I'm assuming that the next iPhone will be at least as good as the current one, and I'm not in enough of a rush to not find out exactly how much better before signing a 2-year contract.
Since "warm" means a louder mid-low end, how do you pair that with blaming CD's lack of frequencies above 22kHz as being responsible for lower sound quality?
I mean, I get that vinyl has a warmer sound; I have enough of it. And I get that some people prefer the sound of vinyl. But I can get a sound that replicates that (to the point where I can't blind differentiate) by recording my vinyl to CD and playing that back. You can even break out the graphic EQ and roll off high frequency response and boosting the low end, to get a similar outcome.
So feel free to say you don't like CD sound. But the problem almost certainly seems to be one of mastering - far from CD's frequency response being lacking, it seems to be its superior high-end response that has led engineers to pile everything in the mid-high frequencies in search of tiresome, but attention-grabbing mixes.
Or alternatively, 35% of consumers assume that Apple will not make the next version of the iPhone worse than the current one, and aren't in a desperate rush to buy a model that will be obsolete in two months.
Thanks - I didn't know that.
Although I suppose my point is really that the 99 cent price is without any sales tax included, and the UK price is less than 20% extra. It's not Apple's fault we have VAT that high.
At the first result in Google I found, 69p = $1.13, so considering VAT it at 20% we've still got a better deal than the tax-free 99 cents Americans pay.