freeny
Aug 7, 04:19 PM
sorry double post
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 08:49 AM
Nothing will satisfy these Birthers. They don't want the truth and Trump isn't going to give up this great publicity easily.
A Republican examined it, for god's sake.
A Republican examined it, for god's sake.
leekohler
Apr 28, 09:58 AM
You accuse every 'liberal' in this forum of being blinded by their bias. I suppose all of the 'conservatives' see clearly and are willing to consider all reasonable alternatives. Lol. And then the debate becomes what is reasonable? :p
If he can't stand the heat, he knows where the kitchen door is.
If he can't stand the heat, he knows where the kitchen door is.
DStaal
Sep 13, 09:35 AM
It would be nice if 10.5 would allow a more 'blind' method to utilize these cores, versus having programmers specificly program for multi-core. Now that would be extremely helpful and allow a more simultanous workflow.
How much more 'blind' do you want it? All the programmer has to do at this point is use multiple threads. Even if they don't, multiple cores will be automatically used for system and other processes.
Splitting one thread so that it ran cocurent with itself is a recipie for massive trouble. Mac OS X is about as blind as any system out there for the programmer. There may be some more optimizations that the system could make in it's own handling of multiprocessing, but from a programmer's perspective it doesn't matter how many cores the system has. (Unless you really want it to.)
How much more 'blind' do you want it? All the programmer has to do at this point is use multiple threads. Even if they don't, multiple cores will be automatically used for system and other processes.
Splitting one thread so that it ran cocurent with itself is a recipie for massive trouble. Mac OS X is about as blind as any system out there for the programmer. There may be some more optimizations that the system could make in it's own handling of multiprocessing, but from a programmer's perspective it doesn't matter how many cores the system has. (Unless you really want it to.)
benthewraith
Nov 28, 08:02 PM
they said that their music was driving sales of iPods so they deserved a cut of iPod profits from Apple.
What if I don't use my iPod for their crap? What if everything on my iPod was made by independents or music labels independent of the RIAA/MPAA fascists?
What if I don't use my iPod for their crap? What if everything on my iPod was made by independents or music labels independent of the RIAA/MPAA fascists?
LethalWolfe
Apr 10, 10:31 PM
Unless, like I posted earlier, the iPad app functions as a UI for the main application over the network. The Mac (or cluster of macs) takes care of the heavy lifting, and the iPad is used to make edits remotely, and broadcast to HDTV's.
AirPlay & AirEdit.
If you had a cluster of Mac Pro's using thunderbolt (or whatever...ethernet, fibre, etc) to talk to each other, and you used the iPad as a remote UI, you could edit, compress, and broadcast from anywhere.
Apple has all the pieces in place to do this. AirPlay, AppleTV, iPad, iTunes as a media hub for all the devices to communicate, Qmaster, etc...
This has been a long time coming. I remember in 2006-2007 hearing rumors that Apple was working on a tablet like controller for logic. It was to be used to edit the timeline, or act as a virtual mixer, etc. This has been brewing for years, and I think it's almost a reality.
Avid demo'd basically this last year at NAB. IIRC all the media was on servers in Virginia and the presenter did the demonstration on a laptop using a web app.
Lethal
AirPlay & AirEdit.
If you had a cluster of Mac Pro's using thunderbolt (or whatever...ethernet, fibre, etc) to talk to each other, and you used the iPad as a remote UI, you could edit, compress, and broadcast from anywhere.
Apple has all the pieces in place to do this. AirPlay, AppleTV, iPad, iTunes as a media hub for all the devices to communicate, Qmaster, etc...
This has been a long time coming. I remember in 2006-2007 hearing rumors that Apple was working on a tablet like controller for logic. It was to be used to edit the timeline, or act as a virtual mixer, etc. This has been brewing for years, and I think it's almost a reality.
Avid demo'd basically this last year at NAB. IIRC all the media was on servers in Virginia and the presenter did the demonstration on a laptop using a web app.
Lethal
�algiris
Mar 31, 02:30 PM
This is a smart move. It had to happen sooner or later.
John Gruber would eat Steve Job's ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
Doesn't mean he's not right on this one.
John Gruber would eat Steve Job's ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
Doesn't mean he's not right on this one.
asiayeah
Aug 26, 11:44 AM
Im sorry, but when you recall 1.8million batteries, and expect them not to get over laoded with call, your crazy. Dell is making some people wait nearly 70 days to get their replacement. Its a LOT of batteries. Affecting a LOT of users. These things happen.
Because Apple customers care about Apple and they want the best and reasonable services from it. Unfortunately, this is not the current case.
I am sure most people agree that Apple's current way of handling the battery replacements leaves lots of rooms for improvements, particularly in non-US areas.
We also shouldn't feel good just because Dell also does not handle it too well. After all, Dell has more batteries to replace and has a shorter period of time for preparations. Supposingly, Dell provides bargain PCs, while Apple tends to charge a premium for their products. Can't Apple customers deserve better services? Shouldn't Apple be better? Should we all lower our expectations from Apple and ask for a cheaper price instead?
Because Apple customers care about Apple and they want the best and reasonable services from it. Unfortunately, this is not the current case.
I am sure most people agree that Apple's current way of handling the battery replacements leaves lots of rooms for improvements, particularly in non-US areas.
We also shouldn't feel good just because Dell also does not handle it too well. After all, Dell has more batteries to replace and has a shorter period of time for preparations. Supposingly, Dell provides bargain PCs, while Apple tends to charge a premium for their products. Can't Apple customers deserve better services? Shouldn't Apple be better? Should we all lower our expectations from Apple and ask for a cheaper price instead?
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Nuck81
Dec 7, 11:42 PM
would those that have played this game reccomend getting it? or are there too many cons (standard cars, multiple versions of one car, bad AI in racing, bad physics in damage esp with standard, etc) that would lead to buyers remorse?
Keep in mind, I have played quite abit of Forza, but now have a PS3 and want agood racing sim but just keep hearing bad things about this game (largely being an incomplete game)
Standard cars- You can't tell the difference on the track, you can't tell the difference on the way they drive, you can't tell the difference on replays, You can only tell a difference in that there is no cockpit mode (most people drive hood or bumper cam) or in photo mode which you use a few times and then never look do it again.
Multiple versions of one car- Yes there are a lot of Skylines, but with 1,000 cars are you going to run out of different rides? Plus there are a lot of rare Gems. The Chaparral 2J, Tommy Karai ZZII, Tank Car, I can keep going.
Bad AI- Yes sir, the AI does suck pretty bad.
Bad Physics in damage- Forza's canned animation damage is better? I'm a level 26 and my cars bend, dent, deform, get tire donuts from rubbing other cars, and lose hoods and doors. The standard cars don't lose parts, but they dent, deform, and get dirty.
The game is a blast and very addicting. No buyers remorse will be had, unless you have a preconceived negative opinion about the game to begin with.
Keep in mind, I have played quite abit of Forza, but now have a PS3 and want agood racing sim but just keep hearing bad things about this game (largely being an incomplete game)
Standard cars- You can't tell the difference on the track, you can't tell the difference on the way they drive, you can't tell the difference on replays, You can only tell a difference in that there is no cockpit mode (most people drive hood or bumper cam) or in photo mode which you use a few times and then never look do it again.
Multiple versions of one car- Yes there are a lot of Skylines, but with 1,000 cars are you going to run out of different rides? Plus there are a lot of rare Gems. The Chaparral 2J, Tommy Karai ZZII, Tank Car, I can keep going.
Bad AI- Yes sir, the AI does suck pretty bad.
Bad Physics in damage- Forza's canned animation damage is better? I'm a level 26 and my cars bend, dent, deform, get tire donuts from rubbing other cars, and lose hoods and doors. The standard cars don't lose parts, but they dent, deform, and get dirty.
The game is a blast and very addicting. No buyers remorse will be had, unless you have a preconceived negative opinion about the game to begin with.
dscuber9000
Apr 6, 01:41 PM
An Android tablet just seems a little weird to me. Android is an OS for people that basically want a super-custromizable and super-complicated OS on the go. Tablets are great for people that still can't set the time on their VCR (and they still have a VCR plugged in). I'm not surprised that there isn't much of a market for Android tablets.
This goes well with what Steve Wozniak said yesterday.
This goes well with what Steve Wozniak said yesterday.
BoyBach
Aug 6, 03:31 PM
Is that real? PLEASE tell me that is real! :D Priceless.
According to AppleInsider (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1942) there's another banner that reads "Mac OS X Leopard -- Hasta la Vista, Vista."
According to AppleInsider (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1942) there's another banner that reads "Mac OS X Leopard -- Hasta la Vista, Vista."
azzurri000
Sep 18, 11:32 PM
All I have to say is:
"what the hell is taking them so frigging long?"
This update better be bitchin!
"what the hell is taking them so frigging long?"
This update better be bitchin!
NJRonbo
Jun 14, 07:50 PM
Puggles,
Exactly my plan.
Exactly my plan.
LagunaSol
Apr 11, 04:57 PM
Checking email and Browsing the Internet is better on a bigger screen....Ability to open Office files, yes the iPhone does that well, but it's much better with a bigger screen.
Ah, so most of the stuff on Android is "better" only because it's on a bigger screen? :rolleyes:
So if Apple came out with a 6" iPhone, that would make it better than Android, right?
Navigation system..using an Android you don't have to pay $70 (TomTom) for something which should've come with your device.
And the navigation app I purchased houses all the map data on the device and doesn't rely on a data connection to operate. Unlike Android's stock navigation.
What did Android release which was later than the iOS which defined a smartphone?
Um, how about the entire OS?
Yup, but not many people want to lug around a 10" tablet and would like the extra screen real estate on their phones. I know i would.
There are also people (like me) who prefer not to carry something the size of an old-school Palm Pilot in their pocket.
Ah, so most of the stuff on Android is "better" only because it's on a bigger screen? :rolleyes:
So if Apple came out with a 6" iPhone, that would make it better than Android, right?
Navigation system..using an Android you don't have to pay $70 (TomTom) for something which should've come with your device.
And the navigation app I purchased houses all the map data on the device and doesn't rely on a data connection to operate. Unlike Android's stock navigation.
What did Android release which was later than the iOS which defined a smartphone?
Um, how about the entire OS?
Yup, but not many people want to lug around a 10" tablet and would like the extra screen real estate on their phones. I know i would.
There are also people (like me) who prefer not to carry something the size of an old-school Palm Pilot in their pocket.
jclardy
Mar 26, 11:14 AM
This. Until this happens displays won't advance any further for actual computers (non-tablet) because there are so many form factors.
Apple can spend the time to make graphics for each flavor of iPhone or iPad because there aren't that many to deal with. It becomes a lot more difficult to do this across a large range of products. Besides, computers are getting to the point where they are too powerful for most users (hence the popularity of the iPad). A retina display option would give people more incentive to upgrade their desktops, laptops, etc. I think?
As a designer, I'd love a retina 27" ACD. 300dpi right on my screen, almost perfect. Now if we could just get the color/brightness a little more accurate...
I really don't see the point of a display anywhere near 300DPI for a desktop or laptop. My MBP 15" with the 1680x1050 display has a DPI of 128, and with this I can only see the pixels of the fonts if my face is 6" away from the screen, which is above the keyboard. If you have a monitor on a desk it is going to be at least a foot away, but probably more like 1.5-2 feet.
Some of Apples displays are still around 90-100 DPI which I could see upgrading from those to around 150 or so. The main reason they aren't doing it right now is because the menu bar and all other interface elements would be tiny. On my MBP they are already pretty small along with all the default fonts and that is only at 128DPI.
So some kind of resolution independence is necessary, I am hoping for a general fix and not just a retina display fix (2x) because there will be no in between. With a general fix they could implement a slider that allows you to resize everything to fit any resolution.
But back on topic, I am pretty surprised if this is true. I guess they are pushing for a summer release, but I guess they could be pretty much feature complete by now and just need to work out bugs.
Apple can spend the time to make graphics for each flavor of iPhone or iPad because there aren't that many to deal with. It becomes a lot more difficult to do this across a large range of products. Besides, computers are getting to the point where they are too powerful for most users (hence the popularity of the iPad). A retina display option would give people more incentive to upgrade their desktops, laptops, etc. I think?
As a designer, I'd love a retina 27" ACD. 300dpi right on my screen, almost perfect. Now if we could just get the color/brightness a little more accurate...
I really don't see the point of a display anywhere near 300DPI for a desktop or laptop. My MBP 15" with the 1680x1050 display has a DPI of 128, and with this I can only see the pixels of the fonts if my face is 6" away from the screen, which is above the keyboard. If you have a monitor on a desk it is going to be at least a foot away, but probably more like 1.5-2 feet.
Some of Apples displays are still around 90-100 DPI which I could see upgrading from those to around 150 or so. The main reason they aren't doing it right now is because the menu bar and all other interface elements would be tiny. On my MBP they are already pretty small along with all the default fonts and that is only at 128DPI.
So some kind of resolution independence is necessary, I am hoping for a general fix and not just a retina display fix (2x) because there will be no in between. With a general fix they could implement a slider that allows you to resize everything to fit any resolution.
But back on topic, I am pretty surprised if this is true. I guess they are pushing for a summer release, but I guess they could be pretty much feature complete by now and just need to work out bugs.
Squire
Aug 5, 11:30 PM
Does anyone think the recent "problems" at Apple are going to have any effect on what happens Monday.
Story: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/05/BUGAHKBK3H1.DTL
If there are products that are they "maybe" list, this might put them on the "go" list. Big news pushes stock prices up and pushes the "problem" stories on page 2.
I agree. In fact, I was going to post the same thing. I was all set to be disappointed by the keynote until I read a new Forbes article on the topic. They are expecting some pretty amazing things; things that will divert media attention away from Apple's embarrassing financial scandal.
-Squire
P.S. How about seamless MSN/Yahoo! Messenger support in iChat?\
<edit> All of which has upped the stakes for Apple and Jobs, the company's public face. He must show the world something new when he delivers the keynote at Monday's conference. Really new. Something revolutionary, not evolutionary, that will excite the fans, grow the business--and change the subject.
http://www.forbes.com/home/technology/2006/08/04/ipod-jobs-zune_cx_ck_rr_0804apple.html
Story: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/05/BUGAHKBK3H1.DTL
If there are products that are they "maybe" list, this might put them on the "go" list. Big news pushes stock prices up and pushes the "problem" stories on page 2.
I agree. In fact, I was going to post the same thing. I was all set to be disappointed by the keynote until I read a new Forbes article on the topic. They are expecting some pretty amazing things; things that will divert media attention away from Apple's embarrassing financial scandal.
-Squire
P.S. How about seamless MSN/Yahoo! Messenger support in iChat?\
<edit> All of which has upped the stakes for Apple and Jobs, the company's public face. He must show the world something new when he delivers the keynote at Monday's conference. Really new. Something revolutionary, not evolutionary, that will excite the fans, grow the business--and change the subject.
http://www.forbes.com/home/technology/2006/08/04/ipod-jobs-zune_cx_ck_rr_0804apple.html
Voltes V
Sep 14, 09:24 PM
:eek: :eek:
What's planned after that? 16 cores on a chip? Seriously?? :confused: :confused:
yeah, who would've thought we're having quad core 4 years ago.
What's planned after that? 16 cores on a chip? Seriously?? :confused: :confused:
yeah, who would've thought we're having quad core 4 years ago.
e�Studios
Dec 9, 05:12 PM
I love racing my VW Bus. I also love racing the Vauxhall Tigra, which has about 96hp iirc. If all you want to do it buy an F1 and drive as quickly as possible dont even bother looking in GT5's direction. I get bored when i get to the faster races because you get stuck with the same dull cars every game. Woohoo, lets all buy a 458 Italia, F1, or Murcielago... :rolleyes:
I like the early races where i can tune up a Cappucino and get at most 200hp out of it.
GT5 is a game for people who love cars. Not people who only love fast cars. People who love all cars.
I'm sure you'd be happy if everyone started with a Zonda in their garage, but for people who like to drive something fresh and fun the exhaustive list in GT5 is perfect.
+1, as a car enthusiast I love GT and how its laid out. If all I wanted were the fastest cars I would play an arcade racer, its the fun in getting a car and tuning it the way you want it tuned and for how you drive it that appeals to me in GT. The car list comes secondary in my opinion, while yes it does matter to a certain degree its not the end all be all to a simulation game.
I am having a great time with GT5, overall its the game I expected and the game I have loved for so many years. The only one gripe I have is they took away the brake mods. You can fine tune the brake balance controller which is great, but it would have been nice to have upgrades in that category.
I like the early races where i can tune up a Cappucino and get at most 200hp out of it.
GT5 is a game for people who love cars. Not people who only love fast cars. People who love all cars.
I'm sure you'd be happy if everyone started with a Zonda in their garage, but for people who like to drive something fresh and fun the exhaustive list in GT5 is perfect.
+1, as a car enthusiast I love GT and how its laid out. If all I wanted were the fastest cars I would play an arcade racer, its the fun in getting a car and tuning it the way you want it tuned and for how you drive it that appeals to me in GT. The car list comes secondary in my opinion, while yes it does matter to a certain degree its not the end all be all to a simulation game.
I am having a great time with GT5, overall its the game I expected and the game I have loved for so many years. The only one gripe I have is they took away the brake mods. You can fine tune the brake balance controller which is great, but it would have been nice to have upgrades in that category.
mikethebigo
Apr 6, 01:28 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Motorola doesn't "get" tablets yet, but the G1 didn't sell well either. Let's look at the market again in two years, I bet it'll look a lot different.
Motorola doesn't "get" tablets yet, but the G1 didn't sell well either. Let's look at the market again in two years, I bet it'll look a lot different.
Zadillo
Aug 27, 07:49 PM
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.
Do you mean Vista Premium compliance? I'm pretty sure I've seen "Ready for Vista" stickers on plenty of current notebooks featuring GMA950 graphics, for example.
And btw, I have to say "good job" to Apple for doing whatever was necessary to avoid having to put a bunch of goofy decals on their computers. The most amazing thing to me is the number of PC notebook users that leave all those stickers on (I've even seen some people leave the "features" stickers on).
Do you mean Vista Premium compliance? I'm pretty sure I've seen "Ready for Vista" stickers on plenty of current notebooks featuring GMA950 graphics, for example.
And btw, I have to say "good job" to Apple for doing whatever was necessary to avoid having to put a bunch of goofy decals on their computers. The most amazing thing to me is the number of PC notebook users that leave all those stickers on (I've even seen some people leave the "features" stickers on).
rezenclowd3
Dec 7, 06:16 PM
would those that have played this game reccomend getting it? or are there too many cons (standard cars, multiple versions of one car, bad AI in racing, bad physics in damage esp with standard, etc) that would lead to buyers remorse?
Keep in mind, I have played quite abit of Forza, but now have a PS3 and want agood racing sim but just keep hearing bad things about this game (largely being an incomplete game)
I'd say keep playing Forza 2 or 3 for now. Wait another 6mo-a year to pick up GT5 and its numerous proposed updates. As a game, Forza 2 and 3 are more complete packages, especially online.
Keep in mind, I have played quite abit of Forza, but now have a PS3 and want agood racing sim but just keep hearing bad things about this game (largely being an incomplete game)
I'd say keep playing Forza 2 or 3 for now. Wait another 6mo-a year to pick up GT5 and its numerous proposed updates. As a game, Forza 2 and 3 are more complete packages, especially online.
manu chao
Apr 25, 02:10 PM
Clearly you don't understand the issue. Apple is not tracking you since they do not collect this data. Rather your phone is generating a local cache of nearby cell towers and wifi hotspots. This benefits you by making your phones GPS function faster, more accurately and with less battery.
The issue is that the cache is not properly protected and could be used to infer some generalized information about roughly where your phone has been. This data is only accessible by somebody with direct access to your phone, or you phones backup files.
Why do people like that the data on their phones is encrypted and can be remotely wiped? Because it all too likely that something on your phone should not fall into somebody else's hand.
Enabling encryption of the phone by default is just taking reasonable precautions. Creating this data log (by which I mean not deleting any but the most recent entries) is not taking what would be a very reasonable precaution.
I always wondered why the option to encrypt the iPhone backup was there. What data would be on my iPhone but not on my computer (e-mails, browsing history, all sorts of passwords are generally both on my iPhone and my computer). Now I know of one reason, that Apple (or a third-party app) might without my knowledge create databases relating to my phone usage that are more critical than the rest of the data on my computer.
The point is that I would have assumed that any app or part of the OS creating a database would be open and transparent about it.
The issue is that the cache is not properly protected and could be used to infer some generalized information about roughly where your phone has been. This data is only accessible by somebody with direct access to your phone, or you phones backup files.
Why do people like that the data on their phones is encrypted and can be remotely wiped? Because it all too likely that something on your phone should not fall into somebody else's hand.
Enabling encryption of the phone by default is just taking reasonable precautions. Creating this data log (by which I mean not deleting any but the most recent entries) is not taking what would be a very reasonable precaution.
I always wondered why the option to encrypt the iPhone backup was there. What data would be on my iPhone but not on my computer (e-mails, browsing history, all sorts of passwords are generally both on my iPhone and my computer). Now I know of one reason, that Apple (or a third-party app) might without my knowledge create databases relating to my phone usage that are more critical than the rest of the data on my computer.
The point is that I would have assumed that any app or part of the OS creating a database would be open and transparent about it.
Benjamins
Mar 31, 03:34 PM
I was just pointing out that the code is still open, even if some have to wait longer than has been the case. I'm not saying everything is golden and Google are a paragon of virtue, this is certainly a bit of a sly move on their part.
I cannot help shake the feeling that some of the vitriol from certain people is the fear that a more coherent and unified Android ecosystem is an even bigger threat to the iOS platform.
not really. It's just reaction to extreme hypocrisy.
Maybe Google needs to back off from using the word "open" like they own it.
I cannot help shake the feeling that some of the vitriol from certain people is the fear that a more coherent and unified Android ecosystem is an even bigger threat to the iOS platform.
not really. It's just reaction to extreme hypocrisy.
Maybe Google needs to back off from using the word "open" like they own it.
No comments:
Post a Comment