.:[Double Click To][Close]:.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

derrick rose bulls wallpaper

derrick rose bulls wallpaper. chicago ulls wallpaper 2009.
  • chicago ulls wallpaper 2009.



  • nsjoker
    Sep 20, 03:45 PM
    it won't have any dvr functionality... it'll just be frontrow on your tv, and nothing else. woopdee freaking doo





    derrick rose bulls wallpaper. derrick rose bulls wallpaper.
  • derrick rose bulls wallpaper.



  • Peace
    Sep 20, 06:09 PM
    Well said. This product will NOT sell (after the initial "craze") if there is no DVR functionality. People (general mass of people not macrumors folk) are not ready to pay for individual TV shows. People love DVRs because they can record, watch later and skip commercials.

    In the future when Apple has such a stronghold on the cable industry that companies are forced to move to a pay-per-channel (a-la-carte) system, then sure, but not right now.

    DVR is where it is at for the moment. Apple is going to miss the boat. Apple having an iTV does not make me want to buy TV shows. It simply makes me not want to buy an iTV.

    And I guess this is why Disney sold 125,000 movies the first week and Apple has sold millions of TV shows right?*





    derrick rose bulls wallpaper. derrick rose bulls logo.
  • derrick rose bulls logo.



  • iMikeT
    Aug 29, 11:10 AM
    ?tree-huggers? ?interfere with business? !we don't want to start that discussion!


    Do you have proof for your statement, that Apple is doing their best?



    Apple has released a statement regarding the findings and it is just as realiable as Greenpeace's.

    Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.





    derrick rose bulls wallpaper. derrick rose bulls wallpaper.
  • derrick rose bulls wallpaper.



  • Mikael
    Jul 12, 05:35 PM
    I find this whole discussion slightly amusing, mostly because of the apparent need to draw a distinction between "professional" and "consumer" based on slight clock frequency differences. To me, a professional platform is defined by its configurability and flexibility. A professional platform is simply one that can be configured to fit the customers every need. Although CPU performance is important, it's hardly what I'd call the defining factor of wether a system is to be regarded as "pro" or not.

    I don't see any reason why a cheaper Mac Pro with a single 2.4GHz Conroe couldn't remain a machine aimed at professionals. Or does it have to have an outrageous price tag to qualify?

    The whole concept of drawing a line between pro machines and machines for mere mortals seems a little "old". There's nothing really special about a PowerMac or Mac Pro anyway. Put a mid range CPU in the machine and it fits the regular consumer just as well as a professional not demanding the absolute top end CPU performance.

    Maybe I've been damaged by the PC worlds lack of "pro-obsession", but I think it's a healthier approach.

    Merom will underperform a Conroe under equal high loads because of thermal constraints (in unmodified systems).
    It will? Do you have any source for this info? An Intel rep has said that Merom and Conroe are identical, except for a few differences having to do with p-states. This is unlikely to hinder performance at full load, so where did you get this contradicting info?

    Also, the largest part of the power savings between Merom and Conroe are likely to come from reduced core voltage. You will probably be able to come very close to Merom power levels by simply reducing the core voltage of a similarly clocked Conroe.





    derrick rose bulls wallpaper. Chicago Bulls Wallpaper.
  • Chicago Bulls Wallpaper.



  • thejadedmonkey
    Sep 20, 09:25 AM
    If I have a mini, couldn't I use it as an iTV with frontrow? Why would I get an iTV when I can get a refirb mini for $200 more, when it can do more?





    derrick rose bulls wallpaper. derrick rose bulls wallpaper.
  • derrick rose bulls wallpaper.



  • D4F
    Apr 28, 09:19 AM
    Tablets like the iPad, Xoom, G-Slate, heck, even smartphones like the iPhone, Droid, Incredible, etc.. are all lower case "pc"s. As in, they are computers that are personal. They aren't upper case PCs, as in IBM PC compatible.

    Servers based on Intel architecture processors like the C7000 chassis blades are not lower case "pc"s, as in, they aren't personal computer systems. They are servers (also why are we talking about servers here ? Is there even any evidence Catalyst is including those in HP's and Dell's numbers ? I doubt they are...). They are however (again, the Intel variant) upper case PCs, as in IBM PC compatible .

    PC (Personal Computer) is an architecture defined in the 80s by IBM. pc is a personal computer. Learn the difference boys and girls.

    Should the Tablet sales be included in charts like these ? I don't think so, this is just a very pro Apple analyst group trying to make it look like Apple is having more success in a segment they have usually lagged a bit in (though in which they are still showing quite the growth and beating expectations without the iPad).


    The hardware components in a server go through much more testing for reliability. They are meant to work 24/7.

    Pretty much what you get is same stuff with better components/materials and etc. Does BMW differ any from FORD? Not really but in general what's believed they use better stuff.

    Same thing with PCs. Server it's just a nice window for companies like Dell to put a higher $$ tag on it. What consumer gets is better warranty and USUALLY less power simply to prevent overheating issues that arise from long term continous usage.

    I use server chips in my home PC for that exact reason. They are no different but "should" last longer and that is why I spend extra $$ on them.

    Just a term.

    *nice article that points few differences between a xeon and a Core 2 Quad.
    http://techreport.com/articles.x/14555





    derrick rose bulls wallpaper. derrick rose number 25. either
  • derrick rose number 25. either



  • flopticalcube
    Mar 16, 01:29 PM
    Instead of the OP, I guess the question you really need to answer is, should we make decisions based on sound reality based scientific data, or short-term, panic-mode, irrational reactions to the effects of an extremely rare national emergency which could have been better prepared for (like not putting the plant on the ****** BEACH!)


    Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:

    Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...





    derrick rose bulls wallpaper. derrick rose bulls 2011.
  • derrick rose bulls 2011.



  • rhett7660
    Mar 27, 11:44 AM
    So much for taking the higher road and preaching everyone is equal etc etc etc. What a bunch of hipacrits.





    derrick rose bulls wallpaper. derrick rose chicago ulls wallpaper. derrick rose tattoo neck. derrick rose tattoo neck. LethalWolfe. Apr 10, 02:21 AM
  • derrick rose chicago ulls wallpaper. derrick rose tattoo neck. derrick rose tattoo neck. LethalWolfe. Apr 10, 02:21 AM



  • damnyooneek
    Oct 7, 06:14 PM
    its going to happen since its so open and so many brands are putting it into their phones.





    derrick rose bulls wallpaper. derrick rose dunk ulls. will
  • derrick rose dunk ulls. will



  • bluap84
    Mar 11, 03:25 AM
    The Guardian has a good updated feed here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/11/japan-earthquake) if anyone wants to be kept updated





    derrick rose bulls wallpaper. chicago ulls wallpaper rose.
  • chicago ulls wallpaper rose.



  • *LTD*
    Apr 28, 08:05 AM
    Then they should include it in such #'s when it WILL be one not while it's not don't you think?





    derrick rose bulls wallpaper. chicago ulls derrick rose
  • chicago ulls derrick rose



  • neko girl
    Mar 24, 11:55 PM
    People can BELIEVE whatever they want.

    The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.

    Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.

    Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.





    derrick rose bulls wallpaper. Derrick Rose Iphone Wallpaper
  • Derrick Rose Iphone Wallpaper



  • AtomBoy
    Oct 9, 11:01 PM
    I'm kind of caught between a rock and a hard place.

    Speed is important for me: CD-burning, video-editing, animation-rendering. For that reason the last computer I bought was a Quicksilver. It was the obvious choice at the time.

    I imagined that my next computer would be another Mac to replace my ageing PC. Now it's not so clear. From the informed posts by new P4/XP users on this site it's clear that PC could do the things I want it to do more quickly and, arguably, with comparable stability.

    BUT, I'm an expat living in Japan. One huge advantage of OSX is unicode. My Mac has a Japanese OS, which is great for my wife, but when I'm using the Mac I can switch the user language to English. Much of our Japanese software is also unicode compatible, so we can buy one program that can be used in either of our native languages. This is very cost-effective in the long-run.

    I'm prepared to wait until next year when, hopefully, Apple will be using G5 chips from IBM that are much closer to those from Intel/AMD. I don't need my Mac to be the fastest computer out there (the advantages of OSX would bridge the gap) but I want it to be comparable if I'm going to shell out the extra bucks.

    I don't really want to use XP. On-line activation and security issues still put me off.

    If, however, Apple fail to deliver an impressive new hardware set next year, my next computer may well be PC.

    I hope not, but you have to be realistic...





    derrick rose bulls wallpaper. derrick rose bulls wallpaper.
  • derrick rose bulls wallpaper.



  • Bill McEnaney
    Mar 27, 04:41 PM
    Has he published anything in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of high (or even average) standing?
    That's your favorite question, isn't it, EH? ;) I'll look for a bibliography.





    derrick rose bulls wallpaper. derrick rose bulls wallpaper.
  • derrick rose bulls wallpaper.



  • AidenShaw
    Sep 21, 11:15 AM
    ...you have a Tivo - you have made the decision to keep your recorded TV media in its traditional place - the living room / den.

    The iTV concept starts from the premis that this is an outdated concept.
    You have some interesting points, but for some people there are other considerations....






    derrick rose bulls wallpaper. derrick rose bulls wallpaper.
  • derrick rose bulls wallpaper.



  • Tilpots
    Oct 7, 11:52 AM
    Now that Android is coming to Verizon (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=798678) and they will be collaborating on handsets, I have no doubt Android will surpass the iPhone in terms of user numbers. Will it surpass in quality? That remains to be seen...





    derrick rose bulls wallpaper. derrick rose bulls 2011. to
  • derrick rose bulls 2011. to



  • Thunderhawks
    Apr 21, 07:24 AM
    Wondering why Android users are on a Mac forum?

    The discussion of who has the better device is useless.

    Whatever works for you is fine. Whatever works for me is fine.

    The day something really good comes out on either platform the media will report it , we will see advertising and we can read reviews and check things out and decide what to buy next.

    Do I feel ghz or chip envy about standby time, camera resolution mp, or app availability?

    Couldn't care less, if my device does what I want it to do.

    So, Android guys, you have the best device if you decide so.

    No need to look at what Apple does. It will come to your device too, just a little later when the copies are ready.





    derrick rose bulls wallpaper. derrick rose dunk ulls.
  • derrick rose dunk ulls.



  • Bill McEnaney
    Mar 27, 04:29 PM
    So much for taking the higher road and preaching everyone is equal etc etc etc. What a bunch of hipacrits.
    Equal in what respect(s)? No one is absolutely equal to anyone else, is he?





    derrick rose bulls wallpaper. chicago ulls derrick rose
  • chicago ulls derrick rose



  • matticus008
    Mar 20, 03:14 PM
    No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.

    Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.

    But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.

    This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.

    For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.

    In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.

    When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.

    This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.


    No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.

    But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.

    Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.





    PlipPlop
    Apr 21, 02:05 AM
    In other news Steve Jobs still scared of the pure domination of Android in the smartphone market.





    jiggie2g
    Jul 13, 08:55 AM
    Originally Posted by sbarton
    Smallish mid-tower case
    Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
    1GB RAM
    250GB SATA 3.0 HD
    1-PCIe x16 Slot
    1-Standard PCI Slot
    6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
    1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
    Dual Layer DVD
    Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
    Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM

    I want it at or less than $1199.00

    Now gimmie




    slu
    Sep 12, 03:26 PM
    I agree with most of the comments thus far.

    I am excited at the prospect of an Apple "Media Center", but this just seems like wireless front row for your TV. Which is nice, but I want a DVR and I want to be able to slide a DVD in there. I don't want to have to go to my Mac in another room to watch a DVD. But I suppose Apple does not want you to buy DVDs anymore. And if you can't order movies from the couch, then it will also suffer.

    And if it works as well as my airport express does for audio (which is just OK, a lot of skips, but then I am still on 802.11b because of my TiVo), then I will pass altogether.

    Good price point though. And I wonder if it'll be Mac and PC?





    shawnce
    Oct 26, 09:59 AM
    MacOSX scales very poorly compared to (say) Linux, Irix, or AIX, owing to its Mach underpinnings.

    Tiger was the first big step in breaking the monolithic threading model of the BSD layer that was inherited from BSD (not a MACH issue). Leopard is going beyond that in a few key areas, for example to allow better efficiency on high-core count per socket systems.

    XNU handles multiple cores just fine but improvements can always be made and they are being made.

    8 cpus won't get you much over 4 until Apple rips out the Mach guts and replaces it.

    That is simply false. The schedular in Mac OS X handles 8 cores just fine... what Applications do with them in a different story.





    todstiles
    Aug 29, 04:57 PM
    You people that are quoting and referencing information on wikipedia are really funny. Since when is anything that is written there taken as fact?

    And you have to take statements from Greenpeace for what they are worth. You are talking about an organization that thrives on attention. Of course they are going to make outlandish statements. It's the only way anyone would ever know they exist.

    Let's not put too much stock in this. There are absolutely no facts to back this up. As usual Greenpeace has nothing to show me. Nothing.