iJohnHenry
Apr 23, 04:41 PM
There are plenty of gods, and goddesses too, but none of them is real.
I know a few, they are surgeons and oncologists.
Just ask their patients. ;)
I know a few, they are surgeons and oncologists.
Just ask their patients. ;)
Eraserhead
Mar 16, 01:49 PM
Other than for aeroplanes oil isn't subsidised here in communist Europe - in fact its heavily taxed.
Coal and Natural Gas aren't subsidised either.
Coal and Natural Gas aren't subsidised either.
tteerts
Oct 5, 05:06 PM
Aparently the answer is "technically yes". See below. I did not know that. But from what they say and a practical point of view the answer is still no.
No worries... but it was a subtlety like that which I was thinking about. I agree that I would likely never know the difference.
No worries... but it was a subtlety like that which I was thinking about. I agree that I would likely never know the difference.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 26, 10:11 PM
And this lady just likely has glossitis or could even be a squamous cell carcinoma of her tongue. These people are mental.
I would have liked to have seen her tongue before the priest put the host on it.
I would have liked to have seen her tongue before the priest put the host on it.
r0k
Apr 20, 08:57 AM
as said before...
apple + <--
apple + T
They haven't put a picture of an Apple on that key in years. It's called command now...
http://km.support.apple.com/library/APPLE/APPLECARE_ALLGEOS/HT1216/Mac%20Command.png
http://mac.sillydog.org/archives/pic/keyboard_changes_01.jpg
apple + <--
apple + T
They haven't put a picture of an Apple on that key in years. It's called command now...
http://km.support.apple.com/library/APPLE/APPLECARE_ALLGEOS/HT1216/Mac%20Command.png
http://mac.sillydog.org/archives/pic/keyboard_changes_01.jpg
G5isAlive
Mar 18, 07:36 AM
What exactly about "unlimited" don't people understand? Without limits.
actually there was a limit. single person. not tethering. anything else is in fact breaking the agreement.
actually there was a limit. single person. not tethering. anything else is in fact breaking the agreement.
darkplanets
Mar 13, 02:32 PM
And this is what I dislike about the pro-nuclear rhetoric. This is not true at all. Geo thermal energy. Cleaner, cheaper, safer than nuclear by magnitudes.
A nuclear power station is just a steam turbine fueled by poisonous rocks instead of carbonized trees as a heat source. I believe the iPad app version of Popular Science has an illustrated article about an test plant using geothermal heat instead to run steam turbines.
You are correct in point, yes. The reason I didn't mention geothermal is due to location-- not everyone has access to this easily. Iceland has quite a few geothermal plants. If people in the US weren't so picky about the giant volcano called Yellowstone, there could be an abundance of geothermal power in that area as well. Another alternative is hydroelectric, which also works rather well, however the same environmental groups that dislike nuclear also despise this because it "ruins the river," and the "poor fish can't mate." Of course there's ways around this, but people will be people.
I'm not against alternative energy at all, I just don't think it will supply all of our energy needs for some time, and that nuclear energy can safely fill that stop gap.
As per the typical anti-nuclear sentiment; much of these issues can be resolved rather easily. New reactor designs are far safer, and if you really want safety (as in you can't melt down, ever) then PBR or MSR with thorium is the way to go. Waste an issue? Shouldn't be-- the US needs to complete the fuel cycle with breeder reactors. Furthermore, spent fuel rods can be used locally for power via thermal couples-- this is how NASA powers most of it's spacecraft. As thermal couple efficiency increases, this will become a much more viable solution. If thorium is used (and it should be), the overall lifespan of the byproducts is greatly decreased, meaning waste is even less of an issue.
A nuclear power station is just a steam turbine fueled by poisonous rocks instead of carbonized trees as a heat source. I believe the iPad app version of Popular Science has an illustrated article about an test plant using geothermal heat instead to run steam turbines.
You are correct in point, yes. The reason I didn't mention geothermal is due to location-- not everyone has access to this easily. Iceland has quite a few geothermal plants. If people in the US weren't so picky about the giant volcano called Yellowstone, there could be an abundance of geothermal power in that area as well. Another alternative is hydroelectric, which also works rather well, however the same environmental groups that dislike nuclear also despise this because it "ruins the river," and the "poor fish can't mate." Of course there's ways around this, but people will be people.
I'm not against alternative energy at all, I just don't think it will supply all of our energy needs for some time, and that nuclear energy can safely fill that stop gap.
As per the typical anti-nuclear sentiment; much of these issues can be resolved rather easily. New reactor designs are far safer, and if you really want safety (as in you can't melt down, ever) then PBR or MSR with thorium is the way to go. Waste an issue? Shouldn't be-- the US needs to complete the fuel cycle with breeder reactors. Furthermore, spent fuel rods can be used locally for power via thermal couples-- this is how NASA powers most of it's spacecraft. As thermal couple efficiency increases, this will become a much more viable solution. If thorium is used (and it should be), the overall lifespan of the byproducts is greatly decreased, meaning waste is even less of an issue.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:40 AM
I have a great one: until 1973 the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental illness until they looked at some evidence and found the only harm associated with being gay was the harm inflicted on gay people by hateful a-holes, and without the a-holes, gay people are as happy and well-adjusted as anyone else.
I meant what I said I didn't know whether homosexuality was a mental illness. But I think it's important to distinguish between a mental illness and a that has psychological and/or environmental causes. Mental illnesses include clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, and others. Inferiority complexes, poor self-esteem, and some irrational fears, say, are psychological problems, not mental illnesses. I think homosexuality is a psychological problem with psychological and/or environmental causes. Many same-sex-attracted people think they're born that way or even that homosexuality is genetic. I disagree with them. I think homosexuality begins when the same-sex-attracted person is about 2. If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
I wouldn't be surprised to know that the American Psychiatric Association changed the DSM because of political pressure from special interest groups who disagreed with what the APA thought about homosexuality.
Remember what I said about induction and the asymmetry between confirmation and refutation because even an inductively justified majority opinion can be false.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
I may not have written clearly enough because I am taking a position, Nicolosi's position. Is there a chance that Nicolosi's same-sex-attracted critics dismiss his opinion because they're biased? Gelfin says that there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological causes. But Nicolosi and his colleagues think they are presenting such evidence. Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.
I meant what I said I didn't know whether homosexuality was a mental illness. But I think it's important to distinguish between a mental illness and a that has psychological and/or environmental causes. Mental illnesses include clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, and others. Inferiority complexes, poor self-esteem, and some irrational fears, say, are psychological problems, not mental illnesses. I think homosexuality is a psychological problem with psychological and/or environmental causes. Many same-sex-attracted people think they're born that way or even that homosexuality is genetic. I disagree with them. I think homosexuality begins when the same-sex-attracted person is about 2. If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
I wouldn't be surprised to know that the American Psychiatric Association changed the DSM because of political pressure from special interest groups who disagreed with what the APA thought about homosexuality.
Remember what I said about induction and the asymmetry between confirmation and refutation because even an inductively justified majority opinion can be false.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
I may not have written clearly enough because I am taking a position, Nicolosi's position. Is there a chance that Nicolosi's same-sex-attracted critics dismiss his opinion because they're biased? Gelfin says that there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological causes. But Nicolosi and his colleagues think they are presenting such evidence. Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.
Evangelion
Jul 12, 05:43 AM
...not to mention: non-apple pro apps - waiting.
There are already such apps (Modo from Luxology for example). Just because Photoshop is not universal does not mean that nothing is.
There are already such apps (Modo from Luxology for example). Just because Photoshop is not universal does not mean that nothing is.
greenstork
Sep 12, 07:13 PM
How does Elgato not compete?
Sure it does:
1) I can pause mine.
2) I have a full software based one-click scheduling system
3) I can record high def content.
4) If I use two cards, I can record two streams via a signal splitter.
5) I can certainly watch a prerecorded show while doing all of the above: my Quad Core easily handles this.
Oh it's a competitor for sure, but doesn't measure up in terms of market and mind share. Can you do all of the above without interfacing with your computer? That's what I thought...
Sure it does:
1) I can pause mine.
2) I have a full software based one-click scheduling system
3) I can record high def content.
4) If I use two cards, I can record two streams via a signal splitter.
5) I can certainly watch a prerecorded show while doing all of the above: my Quad Core easily handles this.
Oh it's a competitor for sure, but doesn't measure up in terms of market and mind share. Can you do all of the above without interfacing with your computer? That's what I thought...
appleguy123
Apr 22, 08:31 PM
proof?
I wouldn't want to succumb to the accusation made in the first post. :) http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1055916&highlight=
I wouldn't want to succumb to the accusation made in the first post. :) http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1055916&highlight=
2ndname
Apr 10, 10:16 PM
I like to run both. I love Apple due to their simplicity. IMO it just focuses on working. You want to edit photos, get an Apple that is powerful enough to do that and it just works. You want to just surf the web, get an entry level Apple based on your preference (iPhone/iPad/Notebooks/etc.) and it just works. I'm actually waiting on the iMac refresh to set my fiance up with her first Apple desktop. I got her an iPad 2 and she loves it. For her, it's great to have a product that will work based on what she needs it for (Movie watching, surfing the web, editing photos). The fact that it looks clean and modern is a plus.
As for myself, I work in the IT field and our shop runs Windows. I love building my own rig every year and it keeps me current with the ever evolving computer technology. I'm glad that we have options.
As for myself, I work in the IT field and our shop runs Windows. I love building my own rig every year and it keeps me current with the ever evolving computer technology. I'm glad that we have options.
Speedy2
Oct 8, 03:46 PM
ya that's why I said "generally", however, Googles main source of revenue is advertising. So all google wants is more and more people with smart phones.
..and of course more people using Google's services. I think their major issue was that smartphone makers like Apple and Microsoft have a decided interest in leading users to their own, non-Google services, while "old school" mobile phone companies like Nokia or Motorola don't even have many Web services to speak of. Apple may still be using quite a few Google services, but haven't they just bought a Google Maps competitor? And Google, MS and Apple are all competing in the "Docs" department.
Still, I'm not convinced that the Android investment was really necessary. Microsoft, their biggest enemy, is failing in the mobile OS market, whereas Apple isn't really showing any signs they might target Google's core business, the search engine and Web ads, in the future.
I wonder in which way Google sees its "auxiliary" services (Mail, Docs, Maps, Voice, Wave, et bloody cetera) as a future money maker. They must play a key role for the Android stretgy. However, quite a few people (including me) have my doubts about them. Even the highly successful YouTube isn't making any money.
and Google does have better margins than Apple.. look up their quarterly reports..
I never doubted that Google as a pure software company may have a better margin, but you would need to compare Apple's iPhone business to Google Android business and see who is making more money in total.
..and of course more people using Google's services. I think their major issue was that smartphone makers like Apple and Microsoft have a decided interest in leading users to their own, non-Google services, while "old school" mobile phone companies like Nokia or Motorola don't even have many Web services to speak of. Apple may still be using quite a few Google services, but haven't they just bought a Google Maps competitor? And Google, MS and Apple are all competing in the "Docs" department.
Still, I'm not convinced that the Android investment was really necessary. Microsoft, their biggest enemy, is failing in the mobile OS market, whereas Apple isn't really showing any signs they might target Google's core business, the search engine and Web ads, in the future.
I wonder in which way Google sees its "auxiliary" services (Mail, Docs, Maps, Voice, Wave, et bloody cetera) as a future money maker. They must play a key role for the Android stretgy. However, quite a few people (including me) have my doubts about them. Even the highly successful YouTube isn't making any money.
and Google does have better margins than Apple.. look up their quarterly reports..
I never doubted that Google as a pure software company may have a better margin, but you would need to compare Apple's iPhone business to Google Android business and see who is making more money in total.
Sydde
Apr 23, 01:34 PM
The information isn't conflicting, and it's not intended to convince anyone of intelligent design. In it's simplest form, it's showing that the Hebrew word translated "day" is used to refer to varying periods of time, not necessarily 24-hour periods. As a side note, it's also a portion of an element in the bible that supports the same conclusion as science, which is that the earth isn't merely 7,000 years old. The theory of 4 billion years doesn't contradict the bible.
Genesis 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day
That phrasing occurs throughout the creation chapter in Genesis. It looks more than slightly unambiguous WRT the meaning of "day".
... even the Dalai Lama seems to hate atheists.
Interesting. As the leader of Tibetan Buddhism, is that stance indicative of self-loathing?
Genesis 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day
That phrasing occurs throughout the creation chapter in Genesis. It looks more than slightly unambiguous WRT the meaning of "day".
... even the Dalai Lama seems to hate atheists.
Interesting. As the leader of Tibetan Buddhism, is that stance indicative of self-loathing?
dragonsbane
Mar 20, 05:54 AM
You live in a country, I presume? That means you're bound to the laws of your government, whether you find them morally sound or not.
Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.
It's great that you have morals and that they drive you to an understanding of what is acceptable, but your morality does not place you above the law.
Did you read what I wrote? I said nothing about being above the law. I do not have enough money (yet) to be above the law ;)
Law is a common morality imposed to preserve order and protect rights. It's not perfect all the time, but neither is human reasoning (including morality). People cannot make decisions based on their personal beliefs and just what they can do, as this causes the strong to dominate the weak. Basic social theory. Law and governance serve to protect rights and to act as a guardian against actions that harm others. Acting based on the Will to Power will divide the strong from the weak, causing even greater "division" among people.
Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.
PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak - or haven't you read the papers recently? Persoanlly, I think your whole idea of law is faulty but then I would since I do not belive most of what you write. Good theories but they will never work in reality. What planet do you live on where borders, military, money and laws protect the weak? Sure some do sometimes, but why are we drilling in Alaska for oil again and why has our government stopped to keep Schiavo alive?
Do not confuse your personal beliefs with supremacy over the law. If you know the law, know the consequences of breaking the law, and still choose to do so, that's your decision as an individual. You might not think that it was wrong to do what you did, but correctness is not solely up to you. We do not live in a Nietzschean world, and if the government finds you in violation of laws, you must face the consequences. This software is wrong because it breaks laws and furthermore is used to gain something to which you are not entitled (which is wrong, even without the multiple laws saying so).
What is up with your fascination for "supremacy over the law"? All I said was that it is more important for people to feel and think for themselves. I wonder why that seems to bother you so. Don't like this app? Don't use it. Like it and do not find anything wrong morally with using it (and are willing to risk getting caught), then knock yourself out and do it. I tire of people standing on high preaching about moral certainty. Wonder how often you feel like you are on the wrong side of things. Sure is easy to be certain when you are right all the time.
Don't believe everything you think - Anonymous
Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.
It's great that you have morals and that they drive you to an understanding of what is acceptable, but your morality does not place you above the law.
Did you read what I wrote? I said nothing about being above the law. I do not have enough money (yet) to be above the law ;)
Law is a common morality imposed to preserve order and protect rights. It's not perfect all the time, but neither is human reasoning (including morality). People cannot make decisions based on their personal beliefs and just what they can do, as this causes the strong to dominate the weak. Basic social theory. Law and governance serve to protect rights and to act as a guardian against actions that harm others. Acting based on the Will to Power will divide the strong from the weak, causing even greater "division" among people.
Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.
PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak - or haven't you read the papers recently? Persoanlly, I think your whole idea of law is faulty but then I would since I do not belive most of what you write. Good theories but they will never work in reality. What planet do you live on where borders, military, money and laws protect the weak? Sure some do sometimes, but why are we drilling in Alaska for oil again and why has our government stopped to keep Schiavo alive?
Do not confuse your personal beliefs with supremacy over the law. If you know the law, know the consequences of breaking the law, and still choose to do so, that's your decision as an individual. You might not think that it was wrong to do what you did, but correctness is not solely up to you. We do not live in a Nietzschean world, and if the government finds you in violation of laws, you must face the consequences. This software is wrong because it breaks laws and furthermore is used to gain something to which you are not entitled (which is wrong, even without the multiple laws saying so).
What is up with your fascination for "supremacy over the law"? All I said was that it is more important for people to feel and think for themselves. I wonder why that seems to bother you so. Don't like this app? Don't use it. Like it and do not find anything wrong morally with using it (and are willing to risk getting caught), then knock yourself out and do it. I tire of people standing on high preaching about moral certainty. Wonder how often you feel like you are on the wrong side of things. Sure is easy to be certain when you are right all the time.
Don't believe everything you think - Anonymous
Rt&Dzine
Mar 14, 02:44 PM
What do you mean *if* we have a meltdown. Are you denying there has been a meltdown at all? I'll wager with you that there is not only just a meltdown, but actually *three* active meltdowns currently in progress right now. Even so, I'm not even sure where your confidence over the 'if' comes from, everything so far that we're seeing indicates that they are struggling to even keep the situation under control let alone stabilize it, so I believe it's more of a certainty than an if. I believe they are failing, if not already failed, and the situation is already out of their control so it's only a matter of time.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it.
Japanese officials are saying it's highly likely there is a partial meltdown occurring in three reactors.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it.
Japanese officials are saying it's highly likely there is a partial meltdown occurring in three reactors.
mixel
Apr 10, 10:36 AM
Except . . . it is.
The REAL story here isn't whether mobile gaming - the likes of which we see *currently* and the likes of which we will see in the *near future* (this is just the tip of the iceberg) will be a major force in gaming (it already is) but rather, that "hardcore gamers" feel so threatened by this.
No they don't, they don't see it as a legitimate threat because it has very little industry support. Hardcore gamers would probably welcome a new serious player in the market. Bring it on Apple.. Many of us want buttons but there are good uses for touch screens too. People were the same before Sony AND MS entered the market.. Largely dismissive.
I would be worried if touch was going to "supercede" buttons/sticks/etc, but that is seriously never going to happen. tactile controls are actually more intuitive than remappable non-buttons that work differently for every title.
And here's an even deeper fear of theirs, buried in the subtext: that in time, console gaming will shift to a touch-based tablet paradigm - possibly not in terms a complete replacement for consoles, but in terms of the way developers (and big-name developers) shift their attention to mobile gaming at the expense of consoles, in order to enjoy possibly far greater profits thanks to a much larger audience. After all, consoles are severely limited in their current state. Gaming and maybe Blu Ray playback. Mobile devices, however, offer a galaxy of possibilities - soon to be indispensable tools for nearly everyone.
I don't think anyone's seriously worried about that. It would be a bad thing but i'd not call it threatening. How will they make much larger profits in a market where everything's competing to charge minute amounts? You realise how much money is in the games industry as it is? They've had long enough to start to "shift their attention to mobile gaming at the expense of consoles" - Why isn't there any sign that this is actually happening? At all? Show us the games.. I want them. XD
Imagine big-name, premier titles appearing on mobile devices first before being ported over to that box you hook up to the TV with the big-button controller that RROD'd just last month?
It's really amusing.
Welcome, gamers.
Seriously.
You seem to have no idea how game development works. They aren't going to be building for mobile devices then scaling up to much more powerful home consoles at any point in the foreseeable future.. It would make absolutely NO sense.
There's space in the market for multiple players and various control schemes. :)
Kinect being the fastest selling consumer electronic device in history tells you a lot about the legitimacy of the non-Apple gaming market. And the crazy sales of the Wii, DS etc. Even the PSP is selling in massive amounts in Japan still. The crazy Apple-centric perspective of so many people here is frustrating. There is more stuff going on in technology than what Apple dictates.
The REAL story here isn't whether mobile gaming - the likes of which we see *currently* and the likes of which we will see in the *near future* (this is just the tip of the iceberg) will be a major force in gaming (it already is) but rather, that "hardcore gamers" feel so threatened by this.
No they don't, they don't see it as a legitimate threat because it has very little industry support. Hardcore gamers would probably welcome a new serious player in the market. Bring it on Apple.. Many of us want buttons but there are good uses for touch screens too. People were the same before Sony AND MS entered the market.. Largely dismissive.
I would be worried if touch was going to "supercede" buttons/sticks/etc, but that is seriously never going to happen. tactile controls are actually more intuitive than remappable non-buttons that work differently for every title.
And here's an even deeper fear of theirs, buried in the subtext: that in time, console gaming will shift to a touch-based tablet paradigm - possibly not in terms a complete replacement for consoles, but in terms of the way developers (and big-name developers) shift their attention to mobile gaming at the expense of consoles, in order to enjoy possibly far greater profits thanks to a much larger audience. After all, consoles are severely limited in their current state. Gaming and maybe Blu Ray playback. Mobile devices, however, offer a galaxy of possibilities - soon to be indispensable tools for nearly everyone.
I don't think anyone's seriously worried about that. It would be a bad thing but i'd not call it threatening. How will they make much larger profits in a market where everything's competing to charge minute amounts? You realise how much money is in the games industry as it is? They've had long enough to start to "shift their attention to mobile gaming at the expense of consoles" - Why isn't there any sign that this is actually happening? At all? Show us the games.. I want them. XD
Imagine big-name, premier titles appearing on mobile devices first before being ported over to that box you hook up to the TV with the big-button controller that RROD'd just last month?
It's really amusing.
Welcome, gamers.
Seriously.
You seem to have no idea how game development works. They aren't going to be building for mobile devices then scaling up to much more powerful home consoles at any point in the foreseeable future.. It would make absolutely NO sense.
There's space in the market for multiple players and various control schemes. :)
Kinect being the fastest selling consumer electronic device in history tells you a lot about the legitimacy of the non-Apple gaming market. And the crazy sales of the Wii, DS etc. Even the PSP is selling in massive amounts in Japan still. The crazy Apple-centric perspective of so many people here is frustrating. There is more stuff going on in technology than what Apple dictates.
myamid
Sep 12, 06:27 PM
If it did support HD??
thats kinda stupid considering it has HDMI and component connectors.
Well I had an old Toshiba TV with component in and it sure as hell wasn't an HDTV set... So component and HDTV are NOT interdependant...
The HDMI on the other hand is a good point, but it can still be used for SDTV so it's no a proof in itself (although I'll admit, it's certainly possible). My guess is that it's more an insurance policy for the future if Apple needs to protect the content from being "ripped"...
thats kinda stupid considering it has HDMI and component connectors.
Well I had an old Toshiba TV with component in and it sure as hell wasn't an HDTV set... So component and HDTV are NOT interdependant...
The HDMI on the other hand is a good point, but it can still be used for SDTV so it's no a proof in itself (although I'll admit, it's certainly possible). My guess is that it's more an insurance policy for the future if Apple needs to protect the content from being "ripped"...
Lau
Aug 29, 11:42 AM
...
Good post, AlBDamned. :)
Said a lot of things I wanted to say, but a lot more eloquently. My brain is mush this afternoon. :p
Good post, AlBDamned. :)
Said a lot of things I wanted to say, but a lot more eloquently. My brain is mush this afternoon. :p
kugino
Sep 20, 02:18 AM
I hate to be the first to post a negative but here it is. I don't think this will be overly expensive, but I also think we will be underwhelmed with it's features. Wireless is not that important to me. There are many wires back there already. It sounds like it will not have HDMI or TiVo features, and it will play movies out of iTunes, which screams to me that it will only play .mp4 and .m4v files much like my 5G iPod. If it cannot browse my my mac or firedrive, cannot stream from them, cannot play .avi, .wmw, .rm or VCD, then it will not replace my 4 year old xbox. Which itself has a 120Gig drive and a remote. Unless we are all sorely mistaken about what iTV will end up being, and it ends up adding these features (as someone above me noted, hoping Apple would read this forum) I will wait. Honestly, I am far more excited over the prospect of the MacBook Pros hopefully switching to Core 2 Duos before year end. Then I will have a much more powerful machine slung to my firedrive, router, xbox and tv. :)
dude, do a little research before droning on and on with misinformation. many of your concerns were addressed by steve in the keynote and by reading some of the other threads on the subject. :rolleyes:
dude, do a little research before droning on and on with misinformation. many of your concerns were addressed by steve in the keynote and by reading some of the other threads on the subject. :rolleyes:
crackbookpro
Apr 13, 11:52 AM
I'm getting this, but I will still be using FC Studio 7 a ton... I agree with both sides a lot on these ongoing threads/disagreements on the new release of FCPX.
I altogether, do think it will be a great release, I just know some want some other features, functions, benefits... and are waiting.
I altogether, do think it will be a great release, I just know some want some other features, functions, benefits... and are waiting.
Will_reed
Jul 11, 10:12 PM
I wonder if this will be good enough to cut my 4k footage off my yet to purchase red camera. How ever I think the quad g5 would be enough.
awmazz
Mar 11, 08:57 AM
Link?
To get an idea of how massive this one was, I am in Himeji, and just an hour east of me, in Osaka, buildings were swaying. Now if you look at a map of where the quake is and how far away Osaka is, my god.
No link. TV coverage - NHK World.
To get an idea of how massive this one was, I am in Himeji, and just an hour east of me, in Osaka, buildings were swaying. Now if you look at a map of where the quake is and how far away Osaka is, my god.
No link. TV coverage - NHK World.
sjo
Aug 29, 01:22 PM
Have you read what you just wrote? Who said anything about hunting whales? Eating whale meat? Or being poor?
No one.
Conclusion? You're bigoted.
There's no denying that Greenpeace is further towards "Extremist" than towards "Moderate." That's the jist of what he's saying, and he's right.
-Clive
Whalehunting is sort of implied, but in order clarify: in Norway Greenpeace is discredited largely because they are against whalehunting which, for Norwegians, is part of their policy of trying to keep their large countryside inhabited. Greenpeace is against whalehunting so Norway, as many on this forum, see fit to try to discredit them as being "bigoted" or "extremists" or "treehuggers" instead of providing facts.
No one.
Conclusion? You're bigoted.
There's no denying that Greenpeace is further towards "Extremist" than towards "Moderate." That's the jist of what he's saying, and he's right.
-Clive
Whalehunting is sort of implied, but in order clarify: in Norway Greenpeace is discredited largely because they are against whalehunting which, for Norwegians, is part of their policy of trying to keep their large countryside inhabited. Greenpeace is against whalehunting so Norway, as many on this forum, see fit to try to discredit them as being "bigoted" or "extremists" or "treehuggers" instead of providing facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment