Liquorpuki
Oct 7, 06:44 PM
And how does carrier matter at all in your argument. Sorry but that entire augment there has no meaning in this debate.
You were arguing in your little list that having to jailbreak their iphone is gonna make users want to migrate to Android phones. Jailbreaking is basically hacking and phones are hacked because functionality is crippled. I'm pointing out that Android phones can have the same problem, especially if they come out on carriers such as Verizon, which goes further and also cripples hw features iPhone users take for granted.
The iPhone platform has some significant variations. Location precision (lack of GPS), microphone or speaker existence on the touch, existence of MMS, CPU speed between models, amount of RAM (a potentially big problem for game makers).
The context isn't how many variables exist but how many variables devs have to deal with. iPhone app developers have to deal with much less than developers on decentralized hardware platforms. WM developers have several different OEM's to deal with as well as all their models and generations thereof. If you can't see how the complexity translates into a harder development process, I don't know what to tell you.
Really. Do you have an example of an app bricking a WM phone
I had a couple apps brick my i730 back when I was on Verizon. I ended up having to hard reset and resync all my contacts.
Verizon doesn't cripple their smartphones. Even their GPS is unlocked now
the folks at the Verizon forums disagree with you
So you admit that it's hobbled in its stock form? ATT / Verizon / Sprint don't block any apps you want to use on their smartphones. Or themes. Or anyt
First most phones I've seen are hobbled in its stock form, not just the iPhone. But personally I think the quality of the iPhone and all the other things the design engineers got right outweighs the fact I have to jailbreak it to put a 5x5 matrix of icons on my screen out the box.
I hate AT&T service here in LA and I hate the fact I can't tether but I put up with it because it's such a good phone. I don't care that Android or Sprint doesn't screen apps because to take advantage of that, at this point in time I'd have to downgrade to a shttier phone and go to an app store that has less than 25% of the apps Apple does, and ironically, because they don't screen, more of them suck
The iPhone's Bluetooth was crippled to begin with... and still is. The original iPhone will always lack GPS
Crippled means the hw is functional but was disabled by the carrier or MFGer. An iPhone that wasn't designed with a GPS chip is not crippled. An iPhone having a fullly functional GPS chip that won't work without purchasing Telenav is crippled.
You were arguing in your little list that having to jailbreak their iphone is gonna make users want to migrate to Android phones. Jailbreaking is basically hacking and phones are hacked because functionality is crippled. I'm pointing out that Android phones can have the same problem, especially if they come out on carriers such as Verizon, which goes further and also cripples hw features iPhone users take for granted.
The iPhone platform has some significant variations. Location precision (lack of GPS), microphone or speaker existence on the touch, existence of MMS, CPU speed between models, amount of RAM (a potentially big problem for game makers).
The context isn't how many variables exist but how many variables devs have to deal with. iPhone app developers have to deal with much less than developers on decentralized hardware platforms. WM developers have several different OEM's to deal with as well as all their models and generations thereof. If you can't see how the complexity translates into a harder development process, I don't know what to tell you.
Really. Do you have an example of an app bricking a WM phone
I had a couple apps brick my i730 back when I was on Verizon. I ended up having to hard reset and resync all my contacts.
Verizon doesn't cripple their smartphones. Even their GPS is unlocked now
the folks at the Verizon forums disagree with you
So you admit that it's hobbled in its stock form? ATT / Verizon / Sprint don't block any apps you want to use on their smartphones. Or themes. Or anyt
First most phones I've seen are hobbled in its stock form, not just the iPhone. But personally I think the quality of the iPhone and all the other things the design engineers got right outweighs the fact I have to jailbreak it to put a 5x5 matrix of icons on my screen out the box.
I hate AT&T service here in LA and I hate the fact I can't tether but I put up with it because it's such a good phone. I don't care that Android or Sprint doesn't screen apps because to take advantage of that, at this point in time I'd have to downgrade to a shttier phone and go to an app store that has less than 25% of the apps Apple does, and ironically, because they don't screen, more of them suck
The iPhone's Bluetooth was crippled to begin with... and still is. The original iPhone will always lack GPS
Crippled means the hw is functional but was disabled by the carrier or MFGer. An iPhone that wasn't designed with a GPS chip is not crippled. An iPhone having a fullly functional GPS chip that won't work without purchasing Telenav is crippled.
Stella
Aug 29, 03:28 PM
And it may still happen. If the north atlantic Gulf Stream ceases, northern Europe will be in an effective ice age. Currently, its behaviour is changing...
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=north+atlantic+keep+warm&btnG=Search&meta=
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
Even if, which I doubt, your theory of water vapour is correct - that does not give us the excuse to pollute this planet as we see fit. All industry and humans must clean up their act - literally.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=north+atlantic+keep+warm&btnG=Search&meta=
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
Even if, which I doubt, your theory of water vapour is correct - that does not give us the excuse to pollute this planet as we see fit. All industry and humans must clean up their act - literally.
millerb7
May 2, 11:10 AM
Steeming the panic contributes greatly to solving the problem. Half the problem is the panic around it. Once we've educated the user about the difference between different kinds of malware, we can effectively target the actual problem and solve it instead of going "panic mode" and putting in place many "solutions" that don't actually address the problem.
Education is the best prevention for many malwares. Anti-malware companies want to sell you Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt so they can cash in. Fighting this FUD means the users can better protect themselves, rather than spending cash for something that doesn't even address the core issue.
So you're quite wrong.
You'd be amazed how many Linux distributions still make creating a user account an optional step of installation and how many users just go "with the flow" and just use root all the time.
The fight can't be won, it's useless... there will always be those people who go, "Oh my god... random email, you need my credit card, social security number, and my youngest child? Sure thing! Here you go!"
And then freak out because their bank accounts are all empty and their kid's running off with some 40 year old. It'll never end.
Education is the best prevention for many malwares. Anti-malware companies want to sell you Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt so they can cash in. Fighting this FUD means the users can better protect themselves, rather than spending cash for something that doesn't even address the core issue.
So you're quite wrong.
You'd be amazed how many Linux distributions still make creating a user account an optional step of installation and how many users just go "with the flow" and just use root all the time.
The fight can't be won, it's useless... there will always be those people who go, "Oh my god... random email, you need my credit card, social security number, and my youngest child? Sure thing! Here you go!"
And then freak out because their bank accounts are all empty and their kid's running off with some 40 year old. It'll never end.
jealousguy86
Apr 20, 10:13 PM
buying an iphone 4 tomorrow after reading the news today and just saying "screw it."
it seems that all the discussion lately from these "sources" is saying that the iphone 5 will basically come out in september/fall, have an 8mp camera, and have the A5 chip. and after what Cook said today, it's obvious there won't be 4G with this new phone, which i didn't really care about in the first place.
so it seems like what most are saying is that this next iphone will be a modest update from the incredible iphone 4, which i think is awesome already. so i figure, get it now, then iphone 6 next year maybe around june/july 2012, i'll just upgrade then to that.
instead of waiting another 5 or 6 months, then getting iphone 5, i could just have the iphone already for those months, then it wouldn't be bad waiting for the 6th iteration. oh well, anything's better than the phone i have now.
it seems that all the discussion lately from these "sources" is saying that the iphone 5 will basically come out in september/fall, have an 8mp camera, and have the A5 chip. and after what Cook said today, it's obvious there won't be 4G with this new phone, which i didn't really care about in the first place.
so it seems like what most are saying is that this next iphone will be a modest update from the incredible iphone 4, which i think is awesome already. so i figure, get it now, then iphone 6 next year maybe around june/july 2012, i'll just upgrade then to that.
instead of waiting another 5 or 6 months, then getting iphone 5, i could just have the iphone already for those months, then it wouldn't be bad waiting for the 6th iteration. oh well, anything's better than the phone i have now.
Hildron101010
Apr 12, 10:22 PM
Steve Jobs said the new version would be "awesome," well I disagree. He was completely wrong... IT IS FREAKIN' ASTOUNDING! Bravo Apple!
_________________________________________________
For the PCs of tomorrow, look at the Macs of today.
_________________________________________________
For the PCs of tomorrow, look at the Macs of today.
matticus008
Mar 20, 04:59 AM
It is nice that some folks here feel they know the "law". Look at the world your "law" has created. Look back in history and review what "law" has allowed humans to do to other humans and our planet.
Personally, I stand for moral relativism every day. It is more important to me that individuals make decisions based on what they feel - individually - are right and wrong. I am glad that some here believe blindly following the "law" keeps them safe both morally and in the eyes of our fine government.
But let me ask you this... in your soul (if you believe in such things), do you really believe it is "wrong" to purchase a song off the iTMS without DRM? I am all for breaking the "law" as long as you know the consequences.
As the argument for abortion rights goes; "Against abortion? Don't have one." If you are a Linux sysadmin and do not agree that using this app is "good", then do not use it. And I applaud your efforts to sway people to your logic and world view. But at the end of the day, every person must sleep with themselves and must make up their own minds as to what to do. I am glad that people here care enough to talk about this issue in the hopes of finding where they stand.
[...]
Those arguing for the supremacy of "laws" over moral reason simply hide the fact that they are dividing humans from one another. If you choose to abide by a law, do so. But do not confuse your knowledge of what the law states with a morally superior stance.
It's not "law," it's law. 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. If you don't agree with the laws, renounce your citizenship and start your own community. 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. 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. The same reasoning you use for your position can be used against your position--the common logical fallacy of ignorance.
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).
People will do what they choose, whether it's right or wrong. Doing the right thing is easy enough. But if it's wrong, they'll attempt to rationalize until they arrive at a way for them to believe it was right, or they'll justify the decision based on a series of other evils/corruptions to cloak the decision in a grey area. Neither changes the reality or frees you from the consequences or potential consequences.
Personally, I stand for moral relativism every day. It is more important to me that individuals make decisions based on what they feel - individually - are right and wrong. I am glad that some here believe blindly following the "law" keeps them safe both morally and in the eyes of our fine government.
But let me ask you this... in your soul (if you believe in such things), do you really believe it is "wrong" to purchase a song off the iTMS without DRM? I am all for breaking the "law" as long as you know the consequences.
As the argument for abortion rights goes; "Against abortion? Don't have one." If you are a Linux sysadmin and do not agree that using this app is "good", then do not use it. And I applaud your efforts to sway people to your logic and world view. But at the end of the day, every person must sleep with themselves and must make up their own minds as to what to do. I am glad that people here care enough to talk about this issue in the hopes of finding where they stand.
[...]
Those arguing for the supremacy of "laws" over moral reason simply hide the fact that they are dividing humans from one another. If you choose to abide by a law, do so. But do not confuse your knowledge of what the law states with a morally superior stance.
It's not "law," it's law. 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. If you don't agree with the laws, renounce your citizenship and start your own community. 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. 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. The same reasoning you use for your position can be used against your position--the common logical fallacy of ignorance.
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).
People will do what they choose, whether it's right or wrong. Doing the right thing is easy enough. But if it's wrong, they'll attempt to rationalize until they arrive at a way for them to believe it was right, or they'll justify the decision based on a series of other evils/corruptions to cloak the decision in a grey area. Neither changes the reality or frees you from the consequences or potential consequences.
UnixMac
Oct 10, 06:34 PM
my 500mhz MP did it in 87 seconds.
I am amazed however that a P4 can do it in 1/20 that time.... It almost says to me that there is a flaw in how software is coded. Can you use the Altivec to improve this?
I seem to recall that FP on the G4 was superior to PIII of double the MHz, so how can the P4 be THAT MUCH faster?
I am amazed however that a P4 can do it in 1/20 that time.... It almost says to me that there is a flaw in how software is coded. Can you use the Altivec to improve this?
I seem to recall that FP on the G4 was superior to PIII of double the MHz, so how can the P4 be THAT MUCH faster?
toddybody
Apr 15, 10:36 AM
This post is not doing much to convince me.
It shouldn't matter to you what other people do. So why do you care?
Why? Because you did it first. You jumped after gay people in your post. We reacted. Get real. If you speak and attack people, they will react and respond with their own opinions. If you can't handle that, you're going to have a very difficult time in the future.
Then, you know what, you should have left at that. I can accept and understand that no two people will always agree. Hell, these forums are flooded with arguments, every single day, and that's fine. Go ahead and argue your point of view against mine. I can take it.
What I will NOT tolerate is disrespect. You had no business accusing me of self-hatred, since you know nothing of me. One does not need to hate himself/herself just because they disagree with certain things. Would it be fair to say you "hate" Apple because you don't think the new MBA's have a C2D processor? See my point?
Anyway...I'm done. Obviously people have very different views and this site, for me, is about relaxing and taking my mind off work and everything else. I'm not going to sit here and argue and debate with any one of you.
Ok, everyone needs to chill. And Darth Maul...back off Caliber. Your militant defense of morals is counter productive.
It shouldn't matter to you what other people do. So why do you care?
Why? Because you did it first. You jumped after gay people in your post. We reacted. Get real. If you speak and attack people, they will react and respond with their own opinions. If you can't handle that, you're going to have a very difficult time in the future.
Then, you know what, you should have left at that. I can accept and understand that no two people will always agree. Hell, these forums are flooded with arguments, every single day, and that's fine. Go ahead and argue your point of view against mine. I can take it.
What I will NOT tolerate is disrespect. You had no business accusing me of self-hatred, since you know nothing of me. One does not need to hate himself/herself just because they disagree with certain things. Would it be fair to say you "hate" Apple because you don't think the new MBA's have a C2D processor? See my point?
Anyway...I'm done. Obviously people have very different views and this site, for me, is about relaxing and taking my mind off work and everything else. I'm not going to sit here and argue and debate with any one of you.
Ok, everyone needs to chill. And Darth Maul...back off Caliber. Your militant defense of morals is counter productive.
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
ender land
Apr 23, 10:31 PM
Frankly, it doesn't take much faith to claim that nothing and no-one stands above nature (i.e. being supernatural).
...
Do you realize the sheer magnitude of this statement?
If even 0.0000001% of an incredibly lowball estimate as to the number of current Christians in the world (not to mention past Christians or other theistic religions) have legitimately experienced a supernatural event - pick one, doesn't matter which or how large or small it is - this is an incorrect statement.
Even if 99.9999% of a billion people claiming supernatural events such as religion are lying, that is still a thousand experiences which invalidate your premise.
Everything we can see is derived from nature.
Spoken like a true empiricist.
Where would God come from then?
I have never understood why this is used as an argument against a god(s). Clearly, something exists now (as an aside, if you disagree with this statement there is absolutely no grounds to say religion is not true either, so I'm going to assume you do agree something does in fact exist, namely the universe). No matter how you believe, either atheism, creationism, flying spagetti monsterism, anything, at some point, there will be the problem that something always existed. Or existed "before." Whether it's God or a singularity point or whatever, all rational beliefs agree upon this point.
Asking how God existed prior to the known universe is meaningless in terms of invalidating any religion.
If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Simple example: I make some robots. I put them into a world (let's say I put them in a room with no visible or perceptible interior doors/windows/etc). They interact and are reasonably self aware. Their entire world is this room. Gravity is "obvious" to them. Suddenly, I rotate the entire room 90 degrees. They would have a situation where the statement "no spiritual entity.. stand[s] above these laws."
Clearly this does not necessarily prove god(s). But it does mean your belief as stated above is illogical (unless starting from the assumed premise that no god(s) exist, in which case your faith rests upon this belief).
...
Do you realize the sheer magnitude of this statement?
If even 0.0000001% of an incredibly lowball estimate as to the number of current Christians in the world (not to mention past Christians or other theistic religions) have legitimately experienced a supernatural event - pick one, doesn't matter which or how large or small it is - this is an incorrect statement.
Even if 99.9999% of a billion people claiming supernatural events such as religion are lying, that is still a thousand experiences which invalidate your premise.
Everything we can see is derived from nature.
Spoken like a true empiricist.
Where would God come from then?
I have never understood why this is used as an argument against a god(s). Clearly, something exists now (as an aside, if you disagree with this statement there is absolutely no grounds to say religion is not true either, so I'm going to assume you do agree something does in fact exist, namely the universe). No matter how you believe, either atheism, creationism, flying spagetti monsterism, anything, at some point, there will be the problem that something always existed. Or existed "before." Whether it's God or a singularity point or whatever, all rational beliefs agree upon this point.
Asking how God existed prior to the known universe is meaningless in terms of invalidating any religion.
If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Simple example: I make some robots. I put them into a world (let's say I put them in a room with no visible or perceptible interior doors/windows/etc). They interact and are reasonably self aware. Their entire world is this room. Gravity is "obvious" to them. Suddenly, I rotate the entire room 90 degrees. They would have a situation where the statement "no spiritual entity.. stand[s] above these laws."
Clearly this does not necessarily prove god(s). But it does mean your belief as stated above is illogical (unless starting from the assumed premise that no god(s) exist, in which case your faith rests upon this belief).
eawmp1
Apr 22, 09:43 PM
According to the poll which I linked earlier (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1055916&highlight=), about 65% of us are atheist or agnostic.
You're assuming truthful answers.
Potential confounding variables still stand.
You're assuming truthful answers.
Potential confounding variables still stand.
Surely
Apr 15, 09:36 AM
yeah that is kind of been my issue with this at well. They focus on the LGBT community but complete side track what I am willing to be is a larger group of striaght kids who get bullied and have long term emotional problems from bullies. That be the fact kids, kids with random disability or just easy targets for one reason or another but they are straight so they do not get focuses on by the media..
Perhaps those groups should make their own videos.
Perhaps those groups should make their own videos.
DavidLeblond
Mar 18, 07:14 PM
Do you really think it's DRM lock-in that's fuelling those sales?
Because personally I think it's the integration and "it-just-works" aspects, combined with a superior product.
It's not the only thing fueling those sales, but yes. That IS iTMS's purpose. It has been stated several times before. Apple doesn't make tons of profit off of the music sales, its the iPods that they make the money off of.
And the DRM lock-in DOES play a factor in this. Remember, Apple is a big corporation... they're out to make money, just like everyone else.
Because personally I think it's the integration and "it-just-works" aspects, combined with a superior product.
It's not the only thing fueling those sales, but yes. That IS iTMS's purpose. It has been stated several times before. Apple doesn't make tons of profit off of the music sales, its the iPods that they make the money off of.
And the DRM lock-in DOES play a factor in this. Remember, Apple is a big corporation... they're out to make money, just like everyone else.
Capt Underpants
Jul 12, 12:08 AM
Hate to say I told you so (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2559135#post2559135) ;)
Oded S.
I'm sticking to my belief that the iMacs will get Merom.
We'll soon see...
Oded S.
I'm sticking to my belief that the iMacs will get Merom.
We'll soon see...
citizenzen
Apr 23, 09:29 PM
http://carm.org/entropy-and-causality-used-proof-gods-existence
Of course this is a Christian Apologetics site so necessarily biased.
Biased, yes. And it reveals the key difference between theists and atheists.
Even if we accept all the steps which lead us to point #6, we are left with (and I paraphrase) ...
Our universe was caused by something very powerful, that isn't itself our universe.
While we could argue that point at length, let's for the moment take it at face value. The problem is the next step derived from from that point. There they make a major leap of faith ...
6. The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state.
B. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning.
C. This means that God is uncaused.
7. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Just because the Bible says something, doesn't mean it is the truth. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning? Is that supposed to be what amounts to evidence? And based on this very flimsy evidence, "therefore" the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
That logic is simply laughable.
It begs the question, did any other religion describe their God[s] as powerful, everlasting, creators of the universe? Why aren't their God[s] likewise the "the uncaused cause of the universe?" Since apparently all it takes is attributing those qualities to a God to make them so.
For example, I have my own God. His name is Darren. Darren is the creator of the universe. He is incredibly powerful. Darren is eternal.
Now to prove Darren is the "uncaused cause of the universe" just refer to the argument that edifyingGerbil linked to, but when you get to #6, substitute this ...
6. Citizenzen teaches that Darren is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. Darren's existence (according to Citizenzen) is not an event, but a state.
B. Citizenzen says that Darren is God without a beginning.
C. This means that Darren is uncaused.
7. Therefore, Darren is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Of course this is a Christian Apologetics site so necessarily biased.
Biased, yes. And it reveals the key difference between theists and atheists.
Even if we accept all the steps which lead us to point #6, we are left with (and I paraphrase) ...
Our universe was caused by something very powerful, that isn't itself our universe.
While we could argue that point at length, let's for the moment take it at face value. The problem is the next step derived from from that point. There they make a major leap of faith ...
6. The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state.
B. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning.
C. This means that God is uncaused.
7. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Just because the Bible says something, doesn't mean it is the truth. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning? Is that supposed to be what amounts to evidence? And based on this very flimsy evidence, "therefore" the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
That logic is simply laughable.
It begs the question, did any other religion describe their God[s] as powerful, everlasting, creators of the universe? Why aren't their God[s] likewise the "the uncaused cause of the universe?" Since apparently all it takes is attributing those qualities to a God to make them so.
For example, I have my own God. His name is Darren. Darren is the creator of the universe. He is incredibly powerful. Darren is eternal.
Now to prove Darren is the "uncaused cause of the universe" just refer to the argument that edifyingGerbil linked to, but when you get to #6, substitute this ...
6. Citizenzen teaches that Darren is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. Darren's existence (according to Citizenzen) is not an event, but a state.
B. Citizenzen says that Darren is God without a beginning.
C. This means that Darren is uncaused.
7. Therefore, Darren is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Sydde
Apr 27, 10:39 AM
The Jesus toast. Verified to look like Jesus or Jeff Daniels.
283096
No, no, I know who that is! He wrote lots of scripture (unlike Jesus):
Oh the day divides the night
Night divides the day
Try to run
Try to hide
Break on through to
The other side
And the verse that everyone would do well to heed,
Show me the way to the next whiskey bar
283096
No, no, I know who that is! He wrote lots of scripture (unlike Jesus):
Oh the day divides the night
Night divides the day
Try to run
Try to hide
Break on through to
The other side
And the verse that everyone would do well to heed,
Show me the way to the next whiskey bar
Azadre
Apr 20, 08:07 PM
Windows is the castle for Microsoft. Office and everything else for the most part was the moat.
Google's castle is advertising, and everything else including android is the moat.
Android is not Windows.
Google's castle is advertising, and everything else including android is the moat.
Android is not Windows.
CIA
Apr 13, 12:34 AM
If it's on the App store how do you deal with volume licenses? My station has 5 seats (and growing), and each seat is a different MobileMe account (Everyone working there has their own account, makes mail and such easier.)
I haven't used the App store yet on the mac, can you buy software and have it work on different machines with different accounts? If all the machines are on the same account can you use the software at the same time? We had to buy a volume license for FCS3.
Also was there any mention if this will interface with my video toaster?
I haven't used the App store yet on the mac, can you buy software and have it work on different machines with different accounts? If all the machines are on the same account can you use the software at the same time? We had to buy a volume license for FCS3.
Also was there any mention if this will interface with my video toaster?
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:34 PM
Except the quality just won't be there yet with this device. As everyone runs out to buy flat screen TVs this year and next, they're going to get home and want to play iTunes movies only to be completely dismayed by the 640x480 content/quality. 4:3 resolution, yuck :confused:
I know it's 802.11 and certainly features an HDMI out, but streaming 720p HD TV takes about 480 Mbps of bandwith, according to Ars:http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060906-7681.html Even 802.11n would have trouble with an uncompressed 720p signal, so quality will most likely be compromised as streaming video is increasingly compressed.
I'm happy to ditch Comcast's 25 shopping channels, in favor of a paid siubscription model, but I'm guessing that the cable & satellite companies are going to do HD a heck of a lot better than Apple.
Actually, HDMI allows the display (TV, monitor,etc) to decrypt and decode the HD content at full resolution. That means the content is still encrypted even after leaving a PC, iTV, etc. so you can't copy it.
Without HDMI, signals are reduced to Standard Def. For copy-protection reasons, HD signals never leave any compliant device - players and monitors alike - meaning no key, no HD.
So, without HDMI, even HD-DVD discs on an xbox, for example, will only look as good as DVDs because the hardware is programmed to reduce the resolution to SD.
I think Apple will have a wireless solution out to handle the streaming content: if not, that is what Gigabit ethernet is for on the device. Home Theatre enthusiasts will gladly string cat 5 cable for this: most homes in the past 8 years are wired for this anyway.
I know it's 802.11 and certainly features an HDMI out, but streaming 720p HD TV takes about 480 Mbps of bandwith, according to Ars:http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060906-7681.html Even 802.11n would have trouble with an uncompressed 720p signal, so quality will most likely be compromised as streaming video is increasingly compressed.
I'm happy to ditch Comcast's 25 shopping channels, in favor of a paid siubscription model, but I'm guessing that the cable & satellite companies are going to do HD a heck of a lot better than Apple.
Actually, HDMI allows the display (TV, monitor,etc) to decrypt and decode the HD content at full resolution. That means the content is still encrypted even after leaving a PC, iTV, etc. so you can't copy it.
Without HDMI, signals are reduced to Standard Def. For copy-protection reasons, HD signals never leave any compliant device - players and monitors alike - meaning no key, no HD.
So, without HDMI, even HD-DVD discs on an xbox, for example, will only look as good as DVDs because the hardware is programmed to reduce the resolution to SD.
I think Apple will have a wireless solution out to handle the streaming content: if not, that is what Gigabit ethernet is for on the device. Home Theatre enthusiasts will gladly string cat 5 cable for this: most homes in the past 8 years are wired for this anyway.
likemyorbs
Mar 25, 10:36 AM
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
Are you speaking religiously or legally? By law, it is a right. However if the church doesn't want to marry gay couples, that's their own stupid business.
Are you speaking religiously or legally? By law, it is a right. However if the church doesn't want to marry gay couples, that's their own stupid business.
ChrisA
Apr 14, 06:35 PM
One off the top of my head is that everything costs money application wise, there is very little freeware.
Not true at all. Almost everything that run under Linux will run on the Mac. Linux is an entire OS with thousands of apps. 90% of that runs on the Mac
Not true at all. Almost everything that run under Linux will run on the Mac. Linux is an entire OS with thousands of apps. 90% of that runs on the Mac
javajedi
Oct 13, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by macwannabe
Saying that the 2.8GHz P4 is no good because it is based on 25 year old architecture is nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
Can I take it then that you don't think that any of the cars on the market at the moment are worth having or have been improved at all on the grounds that they are based on an 80 year old design? "I don't think that BMW is any good as it is based on a Ford model T", hmmmmmmmm dodgy logic methinks.
You are absolutely 110% correct. We've allready dismissed BackToTheMac's outlandish fallacies though :)
I think he gets the picture now....
Saying that the 2.8GHz P4 is no good because it is based on 25 year old architecture is nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
Can I take it then that you don't think that any of the cars on the market at the moment are worth having or have been improved at all on the grounds that they are based on an 80 year old design? "I don't think that BMW is any good as it is based on a Ford model T", hmmmmmmmm dodgy logic methinks.
You are absolutely 110% correct. We've allready dismissed BackToTheMac's outlandish fallacies though :)
I think he gets the picture now....
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 13, 01:56 PM
Does it matter where a carpenter buys his hammer?
Usually no but with the AppStore no corporation can buy anything. All licenses belong to the attached AppleID that makes the purchase. Its a huge flaw in the AppStore Model.
Usually no but with the AppStore no corporation can buy anything. All licenses belong to the attached AppleID that makes the purchase. Its a huge flaw in the AppStore Model.
Squonk
Aug 29, 11:18 AM
I wonder if they mentioned the fact that Dell has made the computer a disposable purchase with their $299 PCs. I'm serious people buy a new Dell every few years because they are garbage. Do you honestly think people give them back for recycling. They sell them on ebay or craigslist, and the new owner after about a year puts them in the dumpster. With Apple people keep their machines much longer, and are much more likely to recycle them because they are smaller and easier to take to a recycling center (no CRT). This alone makes Apple greener then Dell.
I was thinking along the same lines. Over the course of 4 PC's in my household, I have only had 2 macs and these have always been my primary machines. I don't want to part with my 5 year old iMac, it still serves me well for basic surfing and audio streaming needs.
But, the point of the article is that the machines that Apple makes are not as eco friendly as the other manufacturers. Of course, if you looked at the units shipped, wouldn't Dell be less friendly. Aka, they are "making it up" on volume?
If this article is true, then Apple needs to improve what they are doing. It's that simple. The truth hurts when it hits so close to our hearts...
I was thinking along the same lines. Over the course of 4 PC's in my household, I have only had 2 macs and these have always been my primary machines. I don't want to part with my 5 year old iMac, it still serves me well for basic surfing and audio streaming needs.
But, the point of the article is that the machines that Apple makes are not as eco friendly as the other manufacturers. Of course, if you looked at the units shipped, wouldn't Dell be less friendly. Aka, they are "making it up" on volume?
If this article is true, then Apple needs to improve what they are doing. It's that simple. The truth hurts when it hits so close to our hearts...
No comments:
Post a Comment