techwarrior
Nov 12, 12:14 PM
Add me to the happy list. I have had all iPhones since 3G, and rarely lose a call, one or two places I typically go have poor service so I let others know I will call back if I drop in these spots. MCell has done wonders for the poor service at my home.
ATT is the only service I can get at work. Due to my office being an R&D facility for a company that makes phone systems they block all external wireless signals and then put ATT repeaters in the building.
So, for me, it would take a lot to push me over the edge to move to another provider. I do like how others are pushing ATT to adopt with more competitive plan options and think competition from TMo, Sprint/Nextel and Vz can only be good for those of us who can stay with ATT.
ATT is the only service I can get at work. Due to my office being an R&D facility for a company that makes phone systems they block all external wireless signals and then put ATT repeaters in the building.
So, for me, it would take a lot to push me over the edge to move to another provider. I do like how others are pushing ATT to adopt with more competitive plan options and think competition from TMo, Sprint/Nextel and Vz can only be good for those of us who can stay with ATT.
AJsAWiz
Jun 13, 06:08 PM
The perfect solution would be for apple to give all US carriers the Iphone. Then we can go and pick the network that works best. People that like At&t stay with At&t, if you want Verizon or t-mobile then go, that way we all live happy. It�s your call Apple :apple: we customers deserve to choose our carrier for our iphone.
I agree ;)
I agree ;)
100Teraflops
Apr 6, 08:23 PM
Hi guys,
I realize that this is a Mac forum, so chances are good that everyone here is happy with their decision to switch from Windows to Mac. But since there's no sub-forum on a Windows forum called "I tried a Mac but didn't like it" I'll ask here. :)
As someone that has used Windows since before Windows (DOS) and has never used a Mac, what might I NOT like about it?
What might be uncomfortable or difficult?
What major learning curves should I expect? Etc., etc...
I'm sure you get what I'm asking here ;) so please share whatever info you can.
Thanks in advance!
Also, remember you asked what you might not like, not what you would like. Other forum members have included some pluses about OS X, but you are headed in the right direction if you went to an Apple store and spent time with a Mac. Keep us posted "JOE" LOL Sorry, I could not resist. :)
I realize that this is a Mac forum, so chances are good that everyone here is happy with their decision to switch from Windows to Mac. But since there's no sub-forum on a Windows forum called "I tried a Mac but didn't like it" I'll ask here. :)
As someone that has used Windows since before Windows (DOS) and has never used a Mac, what might I NOT like about it?
What might be uncomfortable or difficult?
What major learning curves should I expect? Etc., etc...
I'm sure you get what I'm asking here ;) so please share whatever info you can.
Thanks in advance!
Also, remember you asked what you might not like, not what you would like. Other forum members have included some pluses about OS X, but you are headed in the right direction if you went to an Apple store and spent time with a Mac. Keep us posted "JOE" LOL Sorry, I could not resist. :)
Stridder44
Sep 20, 03:33 AM
Look at your hard drive usage, Music takes up a significant amount of it. Why does it need to be kept on your local machine if iTV provides a network?
Thats an interesting point. I dont know though, something makes me cringe about not having my prized music library on my own computer (fear of losing it I guess?)
Thats an interesting point. I dont know though, something makes me cringe about not having my prized music library on my own computer (fear of losing it I guess?)
ddtlm
Oct 12, 03:30 PM
Wow I missed a lot by spending all of Friday away from this board. I am way behind in posts here, and I'm sure I'll miss a lot of things worth comment. But anyway, the code fragment:
int x1,x2,x3;
for (x1=1; x1<=20000; x1++) {
for(x2=1; x2<=20000; x2++) {
x3 = x1*x2;
}
}
Is a very poor benchmark. Compilers may be able to really dig into that and make the resulting executable perform the calculate radically different. In fact, I can tell you the answer outright: x1=20000, x2=20000, x3 = 400000000. It took me 2 seconds or so. Does this mean that I am a better computer than a G4 and a P4? No, it means I realized that the loop can be reduced to simple data assignments. I have a better compiler, thats it.
Anyway, lets pretend that for whatever reason compilers did not simplify that loop AT ALL. Note that this would be a stupid stupid compiler. At each stage, x1 is something, we ++x2, and we set x3 = x1 * x2. Now notice that we cannot set x3 until the result of X2++ is known. On a pipelined processor that cannot execute instructions out of order, this means that I have a big "bubble" in the pipeline as I wait for the new x2 before I can multiply. However, after the x3 is started into the pipe, the next instruction is just another x2++ which does not depend on x3, so I can do it immediately. On a 7-stage in-order chip like a G4, this means that I fill two stages of the pipe and then have to wait for the results on the other end before I can continue. You see that this is very inefficient (28% or so). However, the G3 is a 4-stage design and so 2/4 of the stages can stay busy, resulting in a 50% efficientcy (so a 700mhz G3 is "the same as" a 350mhz G3 at 100% and a 800mhz G4 is "the same as" a 210mhz G4 at 100%). These are of course simplified cases, the actual result may very a bit for some obscure reason.
Actually the above stuff is inaccurate. The G3 sports 2 integer units AFAIK, so it can do x3 = x1*x2 at the same time as it is doing x2++ (for the next loop of course, not this one). This means that both pipes start one bit of work, then wait for it to get out the other end, then do one bit of work again. So this is 25% efficientcy. A hypothetical single-pipe G3 would do x3 = x1*x3 and then do x2++, however it could not do x3 = x1 * x2 again until the x2++ was out the other end, which takes 4 cycles and started one after the previos x3 = x1*x2, which should mean 3 "bubble" stages and an efficientcy of 20%.
Actually, it may be worse than that. Remember that this is in a loop. The loop means a compare instruction (are we done yet?) followed by a jump depending on the results of the compare. We therefore have 4 instructions in PPC I think per loop, and we can't compare x2 to 20000 until x2++ has gone through all the pipe stages. (Oh no!) And we can't jump until we know r]the result of the compare (oh no!). Seeing the pattern? Wanna guess what the efficientcy is for a really stupid compiled version of this "benchmark"? A: really freaking low.
I'll see about adding more thoughts later.
int x1,x2,x3;
for (x1=1; x1<=20000; x1++) {
for(x2=1; x2<=20000; x2++) {
x3 = x1*x2;
}
}
Is a very poor benchmark. Compilers may be able to really dig into that and make the resulting executable perform the calculate radically different. In fact, I can tell you the answer outright: x1=20000, x2=20000, x3 = 400000000. It took me 2 seconds or so. Does this mean that I am a better computer than a G4 and a P4? No, it means I realized that the loop can be reduced to simple data assignments. I have a better compiler, thats it.
Anyway, lets pretend that for whatever reason compilers did not simplify that loop AT ALL. Note that this would be a stupid stupid compiler. At each stage, x1 is something, we ++x2, and we set x3 = x1 * x2. Now notice that we cannot set x3 until the result of X2++ is known. On a pipelined processor that cannot execute instructions out of order, this means that I have a big "bubble" in the pipeline as I wait for the new x2 before I can multiply. However, after the x3 is started into the pipe, the next instruction is just another x2++ which does not depend on x3, so I can do it immediately. On a 7-stage in-order chip like a G4, this means that I fill two stages of the pipe and then have to wait for the results on the other end before I can continue. You see that this is very inefficient (28% or so). However, the G3 is a 4-stage design and so 2/4 of the stages can stay busy, resulting in a 50% efficientcy (so a 700mhz G3 is "the same as" a 350mhz G3 at 100% and a 800mhz G4 is "the same as" a 210mhz G4 at 100%). These are of course simplified cases, the actual result may very a bit for some obscure reason.
Actually the above stuff is inaccurate. The G3 sports 2 integer units AFAIK, so it can do x3 = x1*x2 at the same time as it is doing x2++ (for the next loop of course, not this one). This means that both pipes start one bit of work, then wait for it to get out the other end, then do one bit of work again. So this is 25% efficientcy. A hypothetical single-pipe G3 would do x3 = x1*x3 and then do x2++, however it could not do x3 = x1 * x2 again until the x2++ was out the other end, which takes 4 cycles and started one after the previos x3 = x1*x2, which should mean 3 "bubble" stages and an efficientcy of 20%.
Actually, it may be worse than that. Remember that this is in a loop. The loop means a compare instruction (are we done yet?) followed by a jump depending on the results of the compare. We therefore have 4 instructions in PPC I think per loop, and we can't compare x2 to 20000 until x2++ has gone through all the pipe stages. (Oh no!) And we can't jump until we know r]the result of the compare (oh no!). Seeing the pattern? Wanna guess what the efficientcy is for a really stupid compiled version of this "benchmark"? A: really freaking low.
I'll see about adding more thoughts later.
iindigo
May 2, 02:24 PM
They have done nothing to discourage it? Well, they introduced an annoying pop-up asking for confirmation that makes the developers customers frustrated. Any suggestion what other meaningful action they can take?
Also, I can't think of any application I have installed on my Windows PC that behaves like this.
When I first started using a Mac seriously, which was when Vista was out and got criticized for UAC, I was really surprised to discover that OS X has the exact same thing. In Windows 7 you not only have the option to switch it on and off, you can also customize the intrusiveness of it, I find it much more user friendly than in OS X.
I think a lot of people here need to actually try Windows 7 out instead of categorically dismiss it.
What do you mean, "Try Windows 7"? I've used and maintained every version of Windows from 98SE all the way up to 7. I even toyed around with 95 in a virtual machine from pure curiosity. Hell, I even have a Windows 7 boot camp partition.
I know exactly what Windows 7 is like. It comes with maintaining every computer at the house, several of the computers at the high school, fixing collegemates' computers, and being known as the neighborhood tech kid since age 14 (now 22, for reference).
Also, I can't think of any application I have installed on my Windows PC that behaves like this.
When I first started using a Mac seriously, which was when Vista was out and got criticized for UAC, I was really surprised to discover that OS X has the exact same thing. In Windows 7 you not only have the option to switch it on and off, you can also customize the intrusiveness of it, I find it much more user friendly than in OS X.
I think a lot of people here need to actually try Windows 7 out instead of categorically dismiss it.
What do you mean, "Try Windows 7"? I've used and maintained every version of Windows from 98SE all the way up to 7. I even toyed around with 95 in a virtual machine from pure curiosity. Hell, I even have a Windows 7 boot camp partition.
I know exactly what Windows 7 is like. It comes with maintaining every computer at the house, several of the computers at the high school, fixing collegemates' computers, and being known as the neighborhood tech kid since age 14 (now 22, for reference).
Don't panic
Mar 15, 03:14 PM
Well, not that I hope he's right, but words like these from people of high up places don't give any comfort.
Europe's energy commissioner Guenther Oettinger dubs Japan's nuclear disaster an "apocalypse,"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110315/wl_afp/japanquakelivereport
yes, but it's a figure of speech.
however bad a realistic worst case scenario would be, it will not require permanent evacuation of anything but a few tens of square miles, if that.
for example, this is not going to be as bad as chernobyl by any stretch of imagination, since the design and built of the plant is much safer, and this uses water for cooling instead of graphite which is itself flammable. And in chernobyl, only the immediate surroundings and another area where the fallout was massive are still off-limits.
In addition, this plant is on the seashore, so about half of the contamination will be dispersed into the ocean.
on a separate note, i can confirm takao's post that many japanese cities have built "tsunami walls" including one of the cities shown in one of the videos (where you can clearly see the water coing over a wall and waterfalling into the city. It might have been inefective in a tsunami this massive, but I am sure they can work on smaller ones. One of the California nuclear power plant on the coast also has a similar 25 feet wall.
I also agree with takao on the bizarre design of putting the spent rods in a pool on top of the reactor and without any containment other than the cooling water and the roof.
it seems clearly a design flaw which hopefully will be/has been taken care of in other designs and fixes
Europe's energy commissioner Guenther Oettinger dubs Japan's nuclear disaster an "apocalypse,"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110315/wl_afp/japanquakelivereport
yes, but it's a figure of speech.
however bad a realistic worst case scenario would be, it will not require permanent evacuation of anything but a few tens of square miles, if that.
for example, this is not going to be as bad as chernobyl by any stretch of imagination, since the design and built of the plant is much safer, and this uses water for cooling instead of graphite which is itself flammable. And in chernobyl, only the immediate surroundings and another area where the fallout was massive are still off-limits.
In addition, this plant is on the seashore, so about half of the contamination will be dispersed into the ocean.
on a separate note, i can confirm takao's post that many japanese cities have built "tsunami walls" including one of the cities shown in one of the videos (where you can clearly see the water coing over a wall and waterfalling into the city. It might have been inefective in a tsunami this massive, but I am sure they can work on smaller ones. One of the California nuclear power plant on the coast also has a similar 25 feet wall.
I also agree with takao on the bizarre design of putting the spent rods in a pool on top of the reactor and without any containment other than the cooling water and the roof.
it seems clearly a design flaw which hopefully will be/has been taken care of in other designs and fixes
tk421
Apr 13, 12:34 PM
Nobody I know that's a professional editor (as opposed to a hobbyist) is very excited. If I had to sum up the opinions in two sentences, it would be: It looks like a mixed bag. I need to hear more.
My thoughts: On the surface, they seem to have addressed a lot of "problems" that didn't exist for me. At the same time, they did NOT address what I found to be the largest shortcomings: Media Management, and Multi-Editor Support. Which leads me to believe that it targets a different audience than I am. For example, I didn't see anything that makes it better for feature film use. But a lot of automated stuff (audio processing, color correction, etc.) will make it better for wedding videos or projects with really small budgets.
Some things, like making audio and video merged in a single track, sound like a drawback, not a feature. But I would have to try it out myself. Maybe it'd be good once I got used to the new way of doing things.
There were some things that sounded good. Utilizing multiple cores, 64 bit, background rendering, editing while ingesting, and PluralEyes-like audio syncing. Of course all this depends on how they're implemented. Just like I might actually like merging audio and video, I might end up not liking these things (for example if you can't disable background rendering). One other "feature" I really like is the price, but that's secondary to the actual functionality.
I guess we'll see. I'm interested in hearing more.
My thoughts: On the surface, they seem to have addressed a lot of "problems" that didn't exist for me. At the same time, they did NOT address what I found to be the largest shortcomings: Media Management, and Multi-Editor Support. Which leads me to believe that it targets a different audience than I am. For example, I didn't see anything that makes it better for feature film use. But a lot of automated stuff (audio processing, color correction, etc.) will make it better for wedding videos or projects with really small budgets.
Some things, like making audio and video merged in a single track, sound like a drawback, not a feature. But I would have to try it out myself. Maybe it'd be good once I got used to the new way of doing things.
There were some things that sounded good. Utilizing multiple cores, 64 bit, background rendering, editing while ingesting, and PluralEyes-like audio syncing. Of course all this depends on how they're implemented. Just like I might actually like merging audio and video, I might end up not liking these things (for example if you can't disable background rendering). One other "feature" I really like is the price, but that's secondary to the actual functionality.
I guess we'll see. I'm interested in hearing more.
pdjudd
Oct 8, 11:30 AM
the reason this topic has gotten so long is due to the fact that most apple fans have no idea what they're talking about..
they love apple and they will defend it to the death, even when their argument has no logic..
Not alt all. I have yet to say that all. I don;t defend Apple to the death at all.
this has nothing to do with which product is better..
Actually, to a degree it is...
it's the simple fact that android will be available on a greater number of handsets compared to apple..
Yea, just like Microsoft did... whoops...
you guys need to look at the Microsoft vs Apple situation..
regardless of what you prefer or believe is a better product,
the one that makes software and licenses it out dominates the market share
Thats not how MS got big. Not at all. Look at the real history behind the situation and you learn that after MS was given a major foothold by IBM, they just leveraged one success to another along with enterprises taking the IBM approach that nobody could go wrong with what IBM chose - which was Microsoft. Lots of companies do that even on closed platforms. Heck, look at how successful RIM is and they control the whole widget. Yes they create a lot of handsets. Google creates no handsets - they don't have any control over the final product.
Microsoft taking an open hardware approach has very little to do with their success. Its a side affect. A coincidence. Look at the video game market for further proof. MS doesn't take the desktop approach with the X-box - they parleyed their gaming successes on Windows to ease developers onto a closed hardware device. Nintendo has done that for years with their franchise characters. You cannot get a more closed ecosystem than Video games - and they are continuously successful. Even MS exploits closed ecosystems and they are finally making a profit (they would have earlier if they could have released a hardware system that wasn't so defective).
you really must have a thick skull not to understand that..
Insulting people does not help your case.
they love apple and they will defend it to the death, even when their argument has no logic..
Not alt all. I have yet to say that all. I don;t defend Apple to the death at all.
this has nothing to do with which product is better..
Actually, to a degree it is...
it's the simple fact that android will be available on a greater number of handsets compared to apple..
Yea, just like Microsoft did... whoops...
you guys need to look at the Microsoft vs Apple situation..
regardless of what you prefer or believe is a better product,
the one that makes software and licenses it out dominates the market share
Thats not how MS got big. Not at all. Look at the real history behind the situation and you learn that after MS was given a major foothold by IBM, they just leveraged one success to another along with enterprises taking the IBM approach that nobody could go wrong with what IBM chose - which was Microsoft. Lots of companies do that even on closed platforms. Heck, look at how successful RIM is and they control the whole widget. Yes they create a lot of handsets. Google creates no handsets - they don't have any control over the final product.
Microsoft taking an open hardware approach has very little to do with their success. Its a side affect. A coincidence. Look at the video game market for further proof. MS doesn't take the desktop approach with the X-box - they parleyed their gaming successes on Windows to ease developers onto a closed hardware device. Nintendo has done that for years with their franchise characters. You cannot get a more closed ecosystem than Video games - and they are continuously successful. Even MS exploits closed ecosystems and they are finally making a profit (they would have earlier if they could have released a hardware system that wasn't so defective).
you really must have a thick skull not to understand that..
Insulting people does not help your case.
Peterkro
Mar 13, 07:38 PM
We don't all have scrubland... or reliable sunshine! Can't see solar power taking off in the UK, I'm afraid. The same goes for most of Northern Europe.
With cooperation it may not be as difficult as many think:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/23/solarpower.windpower
With cooperation it may not be as difficult as many think:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/23/solarpower.windpower
QCassidy352
Oct 25, 10:26 PM
Intel is really making Apple quick with those revisions...
No, not really. This would be the only fast update, if it happens (which I kinda doubt)
iMac: 9 months
MBP: 10 months
mac mini: 8 months
macbook: 5 months and counting
Those are actually wait times that are comparable or longer to what we saw in PPC days.
No, not really. This would be the only fast update, if it happens (which I kinda doubt)
iMac: 9 months
MBP: 10 months
mac mini: 8 months
macbook: 5 months and counting
Those are actually wait times that are comparable or longer to what we saw in PPC days.
Piggie
Apr 28, 02:10 PM
Even our PCs are not standalone by that definition, basically needing a Net connection to get much done.
That makes me smile.. :)
You must be very young :D
It's funny as I'm sure the world of computing managed to perform quite well as did I with all my many computers, many many MANY years before the internet was around and in use my the public in any real numbers and we could download pictures of naked ladies :eek:
A PC can do anything and everything you want, It's a full computer, not a web browser.
That makes me smile.. :)
You must be very young :D
It's funny as I'm sure the world of computing managed to perform quite well as did I with all my many computers, many many MANY years before the internet was around and in use my the public in any real numbers and we could download pictures of naked ladies :eek:
A PC can do anything and everything you want, It's a full computer, not a web browser.
Silentwave
Jul 11, 11:32 PM
i don't see a single pci express 16 x slot on any of the dell poweredge servers, what site are you looking at?
even intel's reference 5000 series motherboards for woodcrest lacks 16x pci express.
will be interesting to see.
Why are you looking at servers? that would be XServe. We're talking workstations here. Go to Dell's Precision workstation series for the medium&large businesses.
even intel's reference 5000 series motherboards for woodcrest lacks 16x pci express.
will be interesting to see.
Why are you looking at servers? that would be XServe. We're talking workstations here. Go to Dell's Precision workstation series for the medium&large businesses.
mdntcallr
Sep 20, 12:36 AM
Sounds like a very cool device.
But to be honest, I am hoping this is just one device of many TV integrated services for apple.
ie,
1- more dvr hdtv functionality
2- hdmi output in 1080p for television of computer and hdtv content
3- blu-ray drive for movies and for data use
4- Apple Televisions/monitors (yes tv's with speakers and hdmi inputs in addition to computer inputs)
5- Itunes movie shop with HDTV Rentals, not have to purchase everything, but instead be able to rent with unlimited views for 1 week. and viewing window can start when user initiates, ie, download lots of movies for a trip, then go view
well i can always hope. :-)
lets hope for a 60" Apple tv/monitor is coming for release soon. this would power a home theater and be usable for much more
But to be honest, I am hoping this is just one device of many TV integrated services for apple.
ie,
1- more dvr hdtv functionality
2- hdmi output in 1080p for television of computer and hdtv content
3- blu-ray drive for movies and for data use
4- Apple Televisions/monitors (yes tv's with speakers and hdmi inputs in addition to computer inputs)
5- Itunes movie shop with HDTV Rentals, not have to purchase everything, but instead be able to rent with unlimited views for 1 week. and viewing window can start when user initiates, ie, download lots of movies for a trip, then go view
well i can always hope. :-)
lets hope for a 60" Apple tv/monitor is coming for release soon. this would power a home theater and be usable for much more
dragonsbane
Mar 21, 08:06 AM
My world holds together quite well when people disagree, actually. Better than yours must, especially since history has proven my argument and disproven your morally relativistic approach. That society exists is a testament to you being wrong.
Ho ho, the fact that this program and discussion exist proves the fallacy of your argument. People will always T-H-I-N-K for themselves and make their own minds up about what is moral. That is all I ever said. That is all we are doing here - thinking. You are putting forward the argument that BECAUSE there is a law being broken it is wrong to break it. While I may agree with you on this particular case (I don't), my argument is simply that laws being broken do not define morality. If you would stop winding yourself up I do not think you would disagree with this.
Furthermore, if you lose the argument that breaking a law does not make you, by definition, immoral, then it follows quite easily that folks who want to use this app should and those that don't, should not - on moral grounds alone.
Everyone (except the rich and powerful) is bound by the same laws - there is no disputing that. So if you, or anyone else wants to kill me or break a copyright, you are subject to the laws of the land. I will always support your desire to reason what you will do out for yourself. Follow the laws if you WANT to. But do not follow them just because they are the law.
Can you really disagree with my desire to live my life that way? You yourself said that you speed. How is using this app any different from you deciding to speed or not. Are you going to teach your child that speeding is immoral?
Ho ho, the fact that this program and discussion exist proves the fallacy of your argument. People will always T-H-I-N-K for themselves and make their own minds up about what is moral. That is all I ever said. That is all we are doing here - thinking. You are putting forward the argument that BECAUSE there is a law being broken it is wrong to break it. While I may agree with you on this particular case (I don't), my argument is simply that laws being broken do not define morality. If you would stop winding yourself up I do not think you would disagree with this.
Furthermore, if you lose the argument that breaking a law does not make you, by definition, immoral, then it follows quite easily that folks who want to use this app should and those that don't, should not - on moral grounds alone.
Everyone (except the rich and powerful) is bound by the same laws - there is no disputing that. So if you, or anyone else wants to kill me or break a copyright, you are subject to the laws of the land. I will always support your desire to reason what you will do out for yourself. Follow the laws if you WANT to. But do not follow them just because they are the law.
Can you really disagree with my desire to live my life that way? You yourself said that you speed. How is using this app any different from you deciding to speed or not. Are you going to teach your child that speeding is immoral?
CaoCao
Mar 25, 09:59 AM
Subtract the individuals affiliated with gangs and the mentally unstable and we're staring at a long list of homosexuals murdered by "mainstream" individuals, many of whom attended church on a regular basis and were in fact catholic. That their religious affiliations are not immediately telegraphed is not evidence of absence, but rather of the fact that 76% of the population self-identifies as Christian.
Aren't we having a thread about religion dying?
Don't forget to subtract the victims who we aren't sure about them being killed because they were homosexual.
So, how many can you prove were Catholic, mentally stable and not in gangs?
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.
"so frequently" ORLY? Prove it. To prove that the Catholic Church restricts rights you have to prove that the rights existed before.
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
To stretch my own analogy, it also ignores that the men who put on white hoods and terrorized black people were not "mainstream" white people either, but they were nevertheless acting on the attitudes held by "mainstream" white people. They were radical, but saw themselves as the ones with the strength of will to enforce the true will of the "mainstream." It's all very well to believe that the darkies should keep their place, but somebody's got to do the work of keeping them there when they step out of line.
However, I will return to what I touched on before: the Catholic Church (and Christian churches generally in the United States) currently have no need for terrorist thugs. They have great political influence and have convinced a significant plurality (seemingly no longer a majority, I am gratified to point out) that they are entitled to subjugate others bloodlessly and anonymously through the democratic process.
At least this is so until the courts clearly state once and for all that this is incompatible with our law and our society. Incidentally, that's also when the thugs will really come out, and you watch how many of them claim to be doing the Lord's work.
The Klan was basically an organization with the express purpose of keeping Negroes in line, can you prove an equivalent organization in the Catholic Church?
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
If we constantly expand the topic, none of what was previously said is relevant.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
You forgot the fact that many "Christians" in the US are fundamentalist nuts
Aren't we having a thread about religion dying?
Don't forget to subtract the victims who we aren't sure about them being killed because they were homosexual.
So, how many can you prove were Catholic, mentally stable and not in gangs?
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.
"so frequently" ORLY? Prove it. To prove that the Catholic Church restricts rights you have to prove that the rights existed before.
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
To stretch my own analogy, it also ignores that the men who put on white hoods and terrorized black people were not "mainstream" white people either, but they were nevertheless acting on the attitudes held by "mainstream" white people. They were radical, but saw themselves as the ones with the strength of will to enforce the true will of the "mainstream." It's all very well to believe that the darkies should keep their place, but somebody's got to do the work of keeping them there when they step out of line.
However, I will return to what I touched on before: the Catholic Church (and Christian churches generally in the United States) currently have no need for terrorist thugs. They have great political influence and have convinced a significant plurality (seemingly no longer a majority, I am gratified to point out) that they are entitled to subjugate others bloodlessly and anonymously through the democratic process.
At least this is so until the courts clearly state once and for all that this is incompatible with our law and our society. Incidentally, that's also when the thugs will really come out, and you watch how many of them claim to be doing the Lord's work.
The Klan was basically an organization with the express purpose of keeping Negroes in line, can you prove an equivalent organization in the Catholic Church?
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
If we constantly expand the topic, none of what was previously said is relevant.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
You forgot the fact that many "Christians" in the US are fundamentalist nuts
dudemac
Mar 20, 10:23 AM
from what i see on it's website tis a *nix programme... ie not windows.. ;)
it runs on windows too you just to have the GTK installed also. Its on the website. see my post to page 3 first post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=115997&page=3&pp=25)
But as of yesterday morning I could no longer purchase songs this way, I can log in and browse, but it will not finalize the sale.
it runs on windows too you just to have the GTK installed also. Its on the website. see my post to page 3 first post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=115997&page=3&pp=25)
But as of yesterday morning I could no longer purchase songs this way, I can log in and browse, but it will not finalize the sale.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 09:14 PM
We can see the ongoing effects of microbes all around us. Can you say the same for your god?
That's not the point. The point. The point is that even before anyone discovered microbes, microbes already existed. You're welcome to insist that there's no God. But maybe you insist that there is none because although there's evidence for theism, you doubt that it is evidence for it. I'm sure many atheistic scientists who dismiss theism a priori because they believe that if God exists, His existence would force them to revise many of their scientific assumptions. I forget the title of the television program I watched, where the host asked a neuroscientist what she thought about near-death experiences. She didn't want to consider potential evidence for an afterlife because an afterlife would disprove too many physicalist assumptions about the nature of the mind.
That's not the point. The point. The point is that even before anyone discovered microbes, microbes already existed. You're welcome to insist that there's no God. But maybe you insist that there is none because although there's evidence for theism, you doubt that it is evidence for it. I'm sure many atheistic scientists who dismiss theism a priori because they believe that if God exists, His existence would force them to revise many of their scientific assumptions. I forget the title of the television program I watched, where the host asked a neuroscientist what she thought about near-death experiences. She didn't want to consider potential evidence for an afterlife because an afterlife would disprove too many physicalist assumptions about the nature of the mind.
peharri
Sep 22, 02:33 PM
i think you misunderstood the recent reports: the consensus interpretation is that iTV does require a computer, and that the hard drive is just for buffering.
I'm not seeing any consensus interpretation that suggests anything of the sort. I can also say with some certainty that the hard drive is "not just for buffering". At the kinds of data volumes streaming media generally runs at, you can store a couple of hours of video in a gig of RAM. This is considerably cheaper, lower power, and smaller, than a hard disk drive. Why would you put a hard disk drive in a device solely for "buffering"?
What I'm seeing, according to the reports so far, is a machine that can make use of local iTunes libraries, but can also show media streamed directly from the iTS.
It makes no sense for Apple to sell an STB that requires a computer. They can make a much more limited device for that purpose, and such a device would not bring the concept of streamed media "to the masses". We don't have all the information at this point, but there's absolutely nothing about the iTV that suggests it's some pricy bolt-on for an existing multimedia computer installation. There'd have been no point in pre-announcing it if it was, and it'd be a complete disaster if it were.
I'm not seeing any consensus interpretation that suggests anything of the sort. I can also say with some certainty that the hard drive is "not just for buffering". At the kinds of data volumes streaming media generally runs at, you can store a couple of hours of video in a gig of RAM. This is considerably cheaper, lower power, and smaller, than a hard disk drive. Why would you put a hard disk drive in a device solely for "buffering"?
What I'm seeing, according to the reports so far, is a machine that can make use of local iTunes libraries, but can also show media streamed directly from the iTS.
It makes no sense for Apple to sell an STB that requires a computer. They can make a much more limited device for that purpose, and such a device would not bring the concept of streamed media "to the masses". We don't have all the information at this point, but there's absolutely nothing about the iTV that suggests it's some pricy bolt-on for an existing multimedia computer installation. There'd have been no point in pre-announcing it if it was, and it'd be a complete disaster if it were.
ftrtrk
Sep 12, 04:47 PM
why the h can't they release it yet? Jobs was using it perfectly on stage, it looks great, this is confusing.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 11:27 AM
Not what he said, but how he said it. But you already knew what I meant.
People tossing out random verses from the Pentateuch/Torah to defend or condemn religion is problematic and is above most people's pay grades. There are plenty of rabbis and other scholarly folks who can help people understand some of these harsh and difficult passages. Of course, it's easier and way more fun to remain ignorant of these books to play "gotcha!" with other people's religious beliefs.
The modern view of homosexual sex in all the orthodox Christian religions is so tame and simple it's almost boring. It's just premarital sex, which is considered sinful. It's not morally worse than heterosexual premarital sex. And yes, marriage is considered to be between a man and a woman in these religions, so yes, that does really suck for the orthodox gay Christian.
People tossing out random verses from the Pentateuch/Torah to defend or condemn religion is problematic and is above most people's pay grades. There are plenty of rabbis and other scholarly folks who can help people understand some of these harsh and difficult passages. Of course, it's easier and way more fun to remain ignorant of these books to play "gotcha!" with other people's religious beliefs.
The modern view of homosexual sex in all the orthodox Christian religions is so tame and simple it's almost boring. It's just premarital sex, which is considered sinful. It's not morally worse than heterosexual premarital sex. And yes, marriage is considered to be between a man and a woman in these religions, so yes, that does really suck for the orthodox gay Christian.
skottichan
Apr 15, 12:57 PM
A person being raped, is by definition, being forced. A person willfully having sex is not being forced. That scripture is expressing the importance of resiting when possible, while also preventing a willful participant from claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences. What it is not doing is claiming that there are different kinds of rape. You are either raped, or you aren't.
The problem is, and maybe I misread, that it only counts as "rape" if the woman fights back. All rapes are different, just as all women are, a rape victim I know personally, went into a catatonic state during the sexual assault. So, by that definition, she was "consenting" and should be stoned as well. In some cases, the assailant will threaten death of the victim/victim's family to ensure submission. So do these count as rape, since they're not fighting back?
promiscuous or not, it is me. I want rights based on my sexual promiscuity. Why is it different? That is who I am.
No ones rights are trampled for being promiscuous, unless you're a woman, then you're a slut and deserve what you get. (I wish this was sarcastic, but that's pretty much how women with multiple partners are viewed).
The problem is, and maybe I misread, that it only counts as "rape" if the woman fights back. All rapes are different, just as all women are, a rape victim I know personally, went into a catatonic state during the sexual assault. So, by that definition, she was "consenting" and should be stoned as well. In some cases, the assailant will threaten death of the victim/victim's family to ensure submission. So do these count as rape, since they're not fighting back?
promiscuous or not, it is me. I want rights based on my sexual promiscuity. Why is it different? That is who I am.
No ones rights are trampled for being promiscuous, unless you're a woman, then you're a slut and deserve what you get. (I wish this was sarcastic, but that's pretty much how women with multiple partners are viewed).
econgeek
Apr 12, 11:07 PM
I can't even believe I was arguing with someone who things that magic bullet and Color are even remotely the same thing.
Goodnight, junior.
I can't believe there are people such as yourself with such a stark lack of integrity that you would lie about what I have said in order to insult me... and simultaneously lack the basic wisdom to recognize that quoting me saying what I actually said in the very message where you tell the lie makes the lie obvious to anyone with basic comprehension skills.
I mentioned the likelihood of a plugin system that would allow grading, and I mentioned magic bullet:
http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/products/all/magic-bullet-looks/
I never said that it and color were "the same", I just gave it as an example of something, like Color, that could be integrated into the app workflow via a plugin architecture. I never made a comparison between them, not that comparing a color grading tool like color to magic bullet looks, which is a color grading tool, is all that radical a notion-- if I had made the comparison.
I'm amazed, if this stark lack of basic integrity and honesty, isn't just you hiding behind an alias online, that you could ever maintain gainful employment acting this way.
You owe me an apology.
Goodnight, junior.
I can't believe there are people such as yourself with such a stark lack of integrity that you would lie about what I have said in order to insult me... and simultaneously lack the basic wisdom to recognize that quoting me saying what I actually said in the very message where you tell the lie makes the lie obvious to anyone with basic comprehension skills.
I mentioned the likelihood of a plugin system that would allow grading, and I mentioned magic bullet:
http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/products/all/magic-bullet-looks/
I never said that it and color were "the same", I just gave it as an example of something, like Color, that could be integrated into the app workflow via a plugin architecture. I never made a comparison between them, not that comparing a color grading tool like color to magic bullet looks, which is a color grading tool, is all that radical a notion-- if I had made the comparison.
I'm amazed, if this stark lack of basic integrity and honesty, isn't just you hiding behind an alias online, that you could ever maintain gainful employment acting this way.
You owe me an apology.
LondonCentral
Apr 8, 10:25 PM
Also, the next Apple TV will be...a fully fledged games console in disguise.:cool:
No comments:
Post a Comment