Apple vs Microsoft pricing
Microsoft has to gouge on its software because it has nothing else. Apple doesn't need to gouge on its software because it's already done so on the hardware.
35 posts • joined 25 Oct 2008
"With a sensor this size, finally, here was a way of getting the original focal length of your old 28mm lens back from the scaling beyond 40mm that occurs when used with smaller sensor cameras."
Repeat after me: The focal length doesn't change! It never changes! It is a physical property of the lens!
"Conroy said: "What I am looking at at the moment is a system whereby the Classification Board can have a role in making that final determination." So if a complaint about a website was made, ACMA would pass that site onto the Classifcation Board."
Excellent, that'll bog 'em down for a few millennia.
The fact that iiNet saw fit to involve themselves in the process in the first place is cause for concern. They knew what they were doing, so they deserve no applause for having realised what bad PR it was and abandoning it.
Why would you continue to give them your custom as opposed to, for example, an ISP that refused to be involved and made its position clear from the outset?
"Finally, after looking at these and more photos on the IFixIt website, we gotta say that we agree with their conclusion that Apple's white-plastic Mighty Mouse looks mighty cheesy next to the aluminum iMac and Apple Keyboard."
You're worried about the mouse? That keyboard is an absolute joke.
In answer to those for whom these new fangled features are too complicated, I have a novel suggestion: don't use them (or simply RTFM.)
In addition, (HD) video capture on DSLRs opens up creative possibilities that have until now only been possible with professional cinema quality equipment, due to the characteristics of the image formats and lenses used in DSLRs.
New features may not be useful to every owner of a particular camera, but they rarely detract from the quality of output or versatility of the system, and to equate "not useful to me" with "useless" is nonsense.
For all those suggesting that it's meaningless because F1 cars run on petrol, you have heard of electric motors, right?
@ Alex Simmons, Rick Brasche, Nick Porter: Formula 1 cars currently carry a substantial amount of ballast. As long as the KERS is lighter than the current ballast (though I don't know whether it is,) the only penalty will be the relocation of the mass; currently the ballast can be used to fine tune the car's centre of mass and weight distribution, but the KERS would no doubt result in less flexibility in the location of that mass.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019