citizenzen
Apr 26, 03:19 PM
Miraculous cure in Lourdes, France?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKMF059m29Y&feature=related
Eucharistie miracles?
In the Vatican
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SfXvMlb8u0&feature=related
In Lanciano, Italy.
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano2.pdf
You gotta do better than youtube videos. I can use youtube to prove Bigfoot (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Bigfoot&aq=f), Mothman (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mothman&aq=f), and chupacabras. (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=chupacabra&aq=0s&oq=Chupra)
Can you cite anything verified scientifically?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKMF059m29Y&feature=related
Eucharistie miracles?
In the Vatican
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SfXvMlb8u0&feature=related
In Lanciano, Italy.
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano2.pdf
You gotta do better than youtube videos. I can use youtube to prove Bigfoot (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Bigfoot&aq=f), Mothman (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mothman&aq=f), and chupacabras. (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=chupacabra&aq=0s&oq=Chupra)
Can you cite anything verified scientifically?
Full of Win
Apr 13, 02:31 AM
I think u r right about apple but I have I have a F150 XLT 2011 and it's great!
Tell me how great it is in 2016...if it last that long.
Tell me how great it is in 2016...if it last that long.
aafuss1
Apr 9, 01:26 AM
Apple getting someon whio's work for Nintendo is a bit strange at first, but the more effort Apple puts into marketing their iOS devices as great gaming devices, the better.
bpaluzzi
Apr 28, 01:06 PM
No I understand quite well. Your example leads me to believe you don't.
People didn't wear, display, or carry their internet connection in public, they did the iPod.
Why do you think White headphones, and MP3 players of similar look / shape & form factor became popular (from other manufacturers mind you) after the iPod became popular? Likely because it was a popular look / gadget that many people wanted.
A fad rarely includes items of technology, but sometimes it does. The subject of the iPod being a fad isn't something just I created / think, it has been discussed for a few years now, especially since the introduction of the iPhone.
Cheers
Yeah, you still don't understand what a fad is. Wow.
People didn't wear, display, or carry their internet connection in public, they did the iPod.
Why do you think White headphones, and MP3 players of similar look / shape & form factor became popular (from other manufacturers mind you) after the iPod became popular? Likely because it was a popular look / gadget that many people wanted.
A fad rarely includes items of technology, but sometimes it does. The subject of the iPod being a fad isn't something just I created / think, it has been discussed for a few years now, especially since the introduction of the iPhone.
Cheers
Yeah, you still don't understand what a fad is. Wow.
flopticalcube
Apr 25, 11:47 AM
When someone uses the word "belief" they are really saying "to the best of my knowledge, experience and understanding, I conclude this to be true". The same would go for disbelief. Since humans are not perfect, not even remotely, we can never be 100% sure. Even that tree you see in front of you has a small probability of being an illusion or a figment of your imagination.
CaoCao
Mar 26, 06:59 PM
No- according to you, love conquers all until it includes people you don't like. That's not love, it's control.
Jesus never did that to anyone, did he? Nope. Jesus loved everyone no matter what. You are as far from Jesus as you could be. Jesus was nice to whores, even when they continued to be whores. Could you do that?
Your attitude is what turned me off to religion years ago. Jesus was a seriously great person. His fans, suck- nastiest people I've ever met. You don't even know what Jesus was about. Jesus was about unconditional love. Jesus basically said he loved everyone no matter what. That is a beautiful message. Now, it would be nice if the people he talked to would live it, and stop being such jerks.
Who were the whores who continued to whore?
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
My parents had two children. They (mom & dad) were good Christians (not Catholics, though). They hit a "rough patch". До свидание. Your anecdotes are meaningless BS. Religious devotion + children + love < stability.
Many marriages don't get over the rough patch, some don't even try :(
You will say anything to rationalize your prejudice, won't you? I have trouble believing anyone is as dense as you pretend here.
Just in case, though, the government offers legal concessions to men and women who legally (not religiously) commit to a marriage. It refuses to extend those same concessions to same-sex couples, and can demonstrate no legitimate state interest in this discrimination. That is denial of equal treatment under the law, and is unconstitutional.
I'm inarticulate. Well, if it is extending benefits heterosexual marriages then examine why it is doing so and then see what the differences between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage would be.
So why deny gay families this devotion that is needed, the commitment of marriage? Seems your reasoning is based out of malice if you really believe what you said.
Please explain what I said (I probably badly phrased it).
If you really love someone, surely you don't want to be with anyone else? If so, then it would be pretty moronic not to ultimately work out your issues with the other person.
What the problem is some people can't tell between infatuation and love.
There is no good reason why priests are expected to do it. Peter was married, as were many of the apostles and the priests of the early church. Nor was this confined to the early church:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes
The Renaissance was a very dark time for the Church.
Actually you're not, because it's not an arbitrary rule. As someone explained to you earlier, there's at least one reason behind banning copulating in the street.
There is no valid reason for prohibiting same-sex marriages. That is arbitrary, and shameful - particularly since it seems to be antiquated, bigoted dogma (that not everyone shares) that is promoting this prohibition.
What a touching story. Don't know what any of this has to do with homosexuality.
And if you are being beaten in the street, and the police walk by instead of coming to your aid - is that depriving you of liberty, or merely "not supporting" you?
Again, don't know what that has to do with homosexuality.
To be fair, I knew what you meant with your comment, but frankly there wasn't any sarcasm in my statement. You were attempting to defend your earlier poorly-constructed post, and I was bemused by it.
What does being gay have to do with being a priest?
I didn't say in the street
Examine the benefits of heterosexual marriage, examine why they are given and then compare with homosexual couples
Marriages don't need to be about love, they need to be a permanent commitment.
Situation would never happen, police don't walk the beat here anymore (thought it would be nice). Also police are obligated to stop crimes in action while the government isn't obligated to create new rights because a very small demographic demands it.
You agree with a mangled, meaningless phrase of dog Latin? Mirabile dictu.
I guess I need a better dictionary
A sentence is also a phrase: all sentences are phrases, but not all phrases are sentences. However, frater, my Latin does not include either subcribo (unless of course he was looking up "sign" and found the word for to sign beneath or subscribe(!)), or of, or a as an indefinite article, for that matter. You could try Id est signum contradictionis, which might make slightly more sense, even in the Vatican. Actually, the id is optional. Hence dog Latin, frater.
Apologies for the horrible Latin, the only non-English language I am fluent in is Mandarin Chinese (specifically the Beijing dialect).
Jesus never did that to anyone, did he? Nope. Jesus loved everyone no matter what. You are as far from Jesus as you could be. Jesus was nice to whores, even when they continued to be whores. Could you do that?
Your attitude is what turned me off to religion years ago. Jesus was a seriously great person. His fans, suck- nastiest people I've ever met. You don't even know what Jesus was about. Jesus was about unconditional love. Jesus basically said he loved everyone no matter what. That is a beautiful message. Now, it would be nice if the people he talked to would live it, and stop being such jerks.
Who were the whores who continued to whore?
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
My parents had two children. They (mom & dad) were good Christians (not Catholics, though). They hit a "rough patch". До свидание. Your anecdotes are meaningless BS. Religious devotion + children + love < stability.
Many marriages don't get over the rough patch, some don't even try :(
You will say anything to rationalize your prejudice, won't you? I have trouble believing anyone is as dense as you pretend here.
Just in case, though, the government offers legal concessions to men and women who legally (not religiously) commit to a marriage. It refuses to extend those same concessions to same-sex couples, and can demonstrate no legitimate state interest in this discrimination. That is denial of equal treatment under the law, and is unconstitutional.
I'm inarticulate. Well, if it is extending benefits heterosexual marriages then examine why it is doing so and then see what the differences between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage would be.
So why deny gay families this devotion that is needed, the commitment of marriage? Seems your reasoning is based out of malice if you really believe what you said.
Please explain what I said (I probably badly phrased it).
If you really love someone, surely you don't want to be with anyone else? If so, then it would be pretty moronic not to ultimately work out your issues with the other person.
What the problem is some people can't tell between infatuation and love.
There is no good reason why priests are expected to do it. Peter was married, as were many of the apostles and the priests of the early church. Nor was this confined to the early church:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes
The Renaissance was a very dark time for the Church.
Actually you're not, because it's not an arbitrary rule. As someone explained to you earlier, there's at least one reason behind banning copulating in the street.
There is no valid reason for prohibiting same-sex marriages. That is arbitrary, and shameful - particularly since it seems to be antiquated, bigoted dogma (that not everyone shares) that is promoting this prohibition.
What a touching story. Don't know what any of this has to do with homosexuality.
And if you are being beaten in the street, and the police walk by instead of coming to your aid - is that depriving you of liberty, or merely "not supporting" you?
Again, don't know what that has to do with homosexuality.
To be fair, I knew what you meant with your comment, but frankly there wasn't any sarcasm in my statement. You were attempting to defend your earlier poorly-constructed post, and I was bemused by it.
What does being gay have to do with being a priest?
I didn't say in the street
Examine the benefits of heterosexual marriage, examine why they are given and then compare with homosexual couples
Marriages don't need to be about love, they need to be a permanent commitment.
Situation would never happen, police don't walk the beat here anymore (thought it would be nice). Also police are obligated to stop crimes in action while the government isn't obligated to create new rights because a very small demographic demands it.
You agree with a mangled, meaningless phrase of dog Latin? Mirabile dictu.
I guess I need a better dictionary
A sentence is also a phrase: all sentences are phrases, but not all phrases are sentences. However, frater, my Latin does not include either subcribo (unless of course he was looking up "sign" and found the word for to sign beneath or subscribe(!)), or of, or a as an indefinite article, for that matter. You could try Id est signum contradictionis, which might make slightly more sense, even in the Vatican. Actually, the id is optional. Hence dog Latin, frater.
Apologies for the horrible Latin, the only non-English language I am fluent in is Mandarin Chinese (specifically the Beijing dialect).
NT1440
Mar 16, 01:39 PM
I'm glad you understand the nuclear is a good solution. You're a bit off base regarding drilling though...
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
iindigo
Apr 13, 09:54 AM
Granted, I've never had use for some of FCP's more advanced features, but... looking at the screenshot, FCPX really looks like it features the UI modernization and cleanup it's needed for a long time now. Looks good to me, and the price even more so - I know the communication students at my university will be quite happy with the price.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 22, 10:13 PM
That's a real shame and I hope that improves for you. I am proud that we appear to be more open minded on this side of the pond. I have had plenty of people disagree with me, but we can agree to accept our differences.
I was once pointed to an interesting indication of the difference in culture. In the USA I believe the $1 bill contains the phrase "In God We Trust". In the UK, we have Charles Darwin on our currency! He appears on the �10 note and a recent �2 coin. The �2 coin changes fairly regularly though.
All our money has that crap on it. Just like how UNDER GOD was added to the pledge when we were all so afraid of the communists taking over, our currency was also hi-jacked by the religious right. Pathetic example of how we do not have separation of church and state.
I was once pointed to an interesting indication of the difference in culture. In the USA I believe the $1 bill contains the phrase "In God We Trust". In the UK, we have Charles Darwin on our currency! He appears on the �10 note and a recent �2 coin. The �2 coin changes fairly regularly though.
All our money has that crap on it. Just like how UNDER GOD was added to the pledge when we were all so afraid of the communists taking over, our currency was also hi-jacked by the religious right. Pathetic example of how we do not have separation of church and state.
AppliedVisual
Oct 31, 07:05 PM
Yeah I know. So are you thinking the Dual Clovertown may be a dog 'cause both sets of four cores have to share one bus each? If it won't really run faster what's the point? I hope that isn't going to be a problem for "simple" video compression work which is all I want it for.
I think for most tasks the extra cores will be beneficial - especially once software catches up and can properly take advantage. But I can see bandwidth-intensive applications having trouble. Uncompressed video editing and compositing could hit a bottleneck here when running several streams at 1080p or 2K ~ 4K film res. I'm personally not too worried about it with most of the work I do, which is 3D rendering and that's farily low-bandwidth with lots of intense calculations. I do quite a bit of video work and lots of editing of my animation output, but even at HD resolutions I don't usually work with enough streams or simultaneous sources to saturate my bus bandwidth. Or at least the bus hasn't become a bottleneck for my G5 Quads or Quad Opteron systems just yet. ...Or should I say the software hasn't allowed it to be. But I'm eagerly awaiting the 8-core Macs and I'm hoping Apple may bring a few other upgrades to the config page with the next update. It's starting to look like a new Mac Pro isn't in the budget for this year, but who knows. I'm planning to buy one if I can...
I think for most tasks the extra cores will be beneficial - especially once software catches up and can properly take advantage. But I can see bandwidth-intensive applications having trouble. Uncompressed video editing and compositing could hit a bottleneck here when running several streams at 1080p or 2K ~ 4K film res. I'm personally not too worried about it with most of the work I do, which is 3D rendering and that's farily low-bandwidth with lots of intense calculations. I do quite a bit of video work and lots of editing of my animation output, but even at HD resolutions I don't usually work with enough streams or simultaneous sources to saturate my bus bandwidth. Or at least the bus hasn't become a bottleneck for my G5 Quads or Quad Opteron systems just yet. ...Or should I say the software hasn't allowed it to be. But I'm eagerly awaiting the 8-core Macs and I'm hoping Apple may bring a few other upgrades to the config page with the next update. It's starting to look like a new Mac Pro isn't in the budget for this year, but who knows. I'm planning to buy one if I can...
�algiris
May 2, 08:58 AM
About as huge as most windows ones!
"Bigger".
"Bigger".
emotion
Sep 21, 09:11 AM
Ha ha how's that for conjecture? :)
I guess we'll see. I'll be surprised but it's not beyond the realms of possibility.
I guess we'll see. I'll be surprised but it's not beyond the realms of possibility.
gravytrain84
Mar 18, 01:31 AM
I knew this was coming sooner or later....:mad:
marksman
Apr 20, 06:00 PM
I don't want to be a systems integrator. I like the Apple iOS ecosystem, and am glad when I want to use different products, it will be easy and seamless for me to migrate.
One of the significant advantages Apple has is that it is a much more considered decision to leave the Apple ecosystyem then it is to leave the Android environment.
One of the significant advantages Apple has is that it is a much more considered decision to leave the Apple ecosystyem then it is to leave the Android environment.
ryme4reson
Oct 8, 11:54 AM
The point you had said before was that the reason x86 sucked was that it was 25 year old technology.
For all purposes I think the PPC is a fast architecture, BUT and here is the but lets say the factor is 1.2 or 1.3, or 2.0 (for BACKTOTHEMAC) All that was well and fine when the clock speed was not a HUGE gap as it is today. Now I have the fastest Single Proc and my 933 is NOT NOT NOT the same speed as a 1.8PV or Athlon 1800+ Also, the 933 was offered by Apple only a few months ago, where a 1.8 can be had in the low end lines on the PC world where the iMac is supposed to compete.
My 933 on the 133 bus is only going to do so much. With the 933 they increased the pipelines(just like PV to scale MHZ) and increased the cache. As far as speed, I think Windows itself is fast software(2K and XP, and the x86 as an entire arch is fast (SYS, MEM, CPU, etc) It may not be the most effecient, or crash proof but who cares, its 2-3X in terms of speed FASTER(Machine speed, not actual). OSX.x may never be as fast as its Microsoft counterpart, but the services and UI are of greater importance.
Also, while intel released 3.0GHZ and new tech after new tech, are you still going to say Apples newest offering in 4 months say (Dual 1.4, with 2 SUPERDRIVES, or some other goodie to direct you away from its slow speed increase) is going to keep up?
Face it, as it stands x86 is CHEAPER, and FASTER, BUT I avoid PC's at all costs. 1. I live in Cupertino (Home of Apple) 2. I am more than an Apple user, I am a fan of its products.
This is an Apple site, and I am on an Apple as we speak, but I will not fall for the fallacious arguments you are trying to make
For all purposes I think the PPC is a fast architecture, BUT and here is the but lets say the factor is 1.2 or 1.3, or 2.0 (for BACKTOTHEMAC) All that was well and fine when the clock speed was not a HUGE gap as it is today. Now I have the fastest Single Proc and my 933 is NOT NOT NOT the same speed as a 1.8PV or Athlon 1800+ Also, the 933 was offered by Apple only a few months ago, where a 1.8 can be had in the low end lines on the PC world where the iMac is supposed to compete.
My 933 on the 133 bus is only going to do so much. With the 933 they increased the pipelines(just like PV to scale MHZ) and increased the cache. As far as speed, I think Windows itself is fast software(2K and XP, and the x86 as an entire arch is fast (SYS, MEM, CPU, etc) It may not be the most effecient, or crash proof but who cares, its 2-3X in terms of speed FASTER(Machine speed, not actual). OSX.x may never be as fast as its Microsoft counterpart, but the services and UI are of greater importance.
Also, while intel released 3.0GHZ and new tech after new tech, are you still going to say Apples newest offering in 4 months say (Dual 1.4, with 2 SUPERDRIVES, or some other goodie to direct you away from its slow speed increase) is going to keep up?
Face it, as it stands x86 is CHEAPER, and FASTER, BUT I avoid PC's at all costs. 1. I live in Cupertino (Home of Apple) 2. I am more than an Apple user, I am a fan of its products.
This is an Apple site, and I am on an Apple as we speak, but I will not fall for the fallacious arguments you are trying to make
paul4339
Apr 21, 12:17 AM
It skews the number non the less. iOS is on four different devices the iTv, iPod touch, iphone, and the ipod touch jumbo. And google doesn't make any hardware. They work with companies to have them made like the nexus series.
The comScore data tracks the number of users ... so if you use four idevices, it's still counted as one user... at least that's what the article mentions.
The comScore data tracks the number of users ... so if you use four idevices, it's still counted as one user... at least that's what the article mentions.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:19 PM
>>> Those who think this isn't a Tivo killer don't understand Tivo's plans.
Those that think this is a Tivo Killer don't understand economics, or why people buy Tivos.
Fort this to even be in the BALLPARK, it needs a Hard Dive. Needs to be Hi Def. That ain't happening at a 299.99 price tag. Still, people love the Tivo interface, so to get them, it's gonna have to offer MORE than Tivo- like an optical drive, a couple tuners. No WAY that is in this box and "not discolsed yet" at 299.
Tivo Killer. That's a killer joke, or Appleboy dreaming. Not close to reality.
You have got this all wrong.
The iTV is a winner for these reasons:
1) It does stream HD content -- Just because the iTunes content is NOT HD (it is near DVD) does not mean the DEVICE is not capable. In fact it uses the HDMI connector (as well as S and componet video) and the built in wireless AND gigabit ethernet insure the bandwidth is there for future HD content.
2) The iTV defeats TIVO in NOT NEEDING a Hard Drive. The PC or MAC Desktop BECOMES the Media Server.
3) Tuners: Numerous Third Solutions (elgato for example) exist right now to capture High Def video to the Mac and PC -- the stream is pauseable.
4) HD DVD -- With Blue Ray forthcoming, the Mac can still add DVD content to iTunes and then stream to iTV.
5) Multiple Streams/Multiple TVs -- iTV beats Tivo in that you can use multiple iTV's connected to a powerful desktop to service multiple monitors using the Front Row Interface.
6) The platform to expand: Apple's resources are superior to Tivo's and they will evolve beyond Tivo in the coming 2 years.
For a superior discussion of all these points visit CNET News:
http://news.com.com/2100-1041-6114835.html?tag=tb
DJO
Those that think this is a Tivo Killer don't understand economics, or why people buy Tivos.
Fort this to even be in the BALLPARK, it needs a Hard Dive. Needs to be Hi Def. That ain't happening at a 299.99 price tag. Still, people love the Tivo interface, so to get them, it's gonna have to offer MORE than Tivo- like an optical drive, a couple tuners. No WAY that is in this box and "not discolsed yet" at 299.
Tivo Killer. That's a killer joke, or Appleboy dreaming. Not close to reality.
You have got this all wrong.
The iTV is a winner for these reasons:
1) It does stream HD content -- Just because the iTunes content is NOT HD (it is near DVD) does not mean the DEVICE is not capable. In fact it uses the HDMI connector (as well as S and componet video) and the built in wireless AND gigabit ethernet insure the bandwidth is there for future HD content.
2) The iTV defeats TIVO in NOT NEEDING a Hard Drive. The PC or MAC Desktop BECOMES the Media Server.
3) Tuners: Numerous Third Solutions (elgato for example) exist right now to capture High Def video to the Mac and PC -- the stream is pauseable.
4) HD DVD -- With Blue Ray forthcoming, the Mac can still add DVD content to iTunes and then stream to iTV.
5) Multiple Streams/Multiple TVs -- iTV beats Tivo in that you can use multiple iTV's connected to a powerful desktop to service multiple monitors using the Front Row Interface.
6) The platform to expand: Apple's resources are superior to Tivo's and they will evolve beyond Tivo in the coming 2 years.
For a superior discussion of all these points visit CNET News:
http://news.com.com/2100-1041-6114835.html?tag=tb
DJO
Cougarcat
May 2, 12:30 PM
That's one of the simple lines of defense for a user, as it lets them know they're about to open a newly-downloaded app. It only does that the first time you launch the app, so why bother disabling such a helpful reminder?
It's not "helpful." I don't need to be "reminded" the file I downloaded a second ago was downloaded from the internet. I'm sure others find it useful, but for me, it's pointless and annoying..
Just a simple "do not warn me about downloaded files again" tickbox in the dialog would be nice.
Until then, I just discovered that this terminal command will do the trick:
defaults write com.apple.LaunchServices LSQuarantine -bool NO
It's not "helpful." I don't need to be "reminded" the file I downloaded a second ago was downloaded from the internet. I'm sure others find it useful, but for me, it's pointless and annoying..
Just a simple "do not warn me about downloaded files again" tickbox in the dialog would be nice.
Until then, I just discovered that this terminal command will do the trick:
defaults write com.apple.LaunchServices LSQuarantine -bool NO
Huntn
Apr 25, 12:30 PM
Absolutely correct. It is irrelevant because it is unknowable so let's not pretend or imagine or try to know the unknowable. Let's live our lives in peace.
This takes responsibility away from what God would want, to what we think is right. I believe this to be a more realistic approach.
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
It's easy "don't believe" as contrast to "don't know". I think it's a very important distinction for some Atheists who go beyond the "unknown" position into a more definitive negative view regarding deities. The problem as I see it is it is not so much that a deity may exist, it's all the purported rules and regs associated with said deity that makes it easy to cast doubt.
You've just made good points, Huntn. I'm sure that many, maybe even most, people have much the same knee-jerk reaction you have. I pointed out som distinctions, though, because nowadays, when many think unclearly, the ignore those distinctions. Each time I hear someone say "I feel" when he should say "I believe" or "I think," the phrase "I feel" reminds me of subjectivism.
Someone here, Lord Blackadder, I think, told me that I didn't understand the "pluralistic society" idea. I do understand it, and I know that many people disagree with me on many topics. I'm willing to learn from others. I even suspect that my false beliefs outnumber my true ones. But if disagreement among people proves anything, it proves that some people hold some false beliefs. If I believe that there's a God and you believe that there's no God, one of us is wrong. Today too many talk as though the freedom to believe what one wants to believe is more important than the truth.
Sure, it's often better to say "I don't know" rather than "I don't believe" because most people probably haven't learned the distinctions I've described. On the other hand, although knowing that a belief is true implies believing that it's true, believing that it's true doesn't imply knowing that it's true. If believing always implied knowing, everyone would be all-knowing.
Say I've deluded myself into believing that my honorary Brian is still living when he is, in fact, already dead. No one is helping me by saying that "Brian is still alive" is true for Bill but not for Brian's family." If I were deluded, the longer my delusion lasted, the more painful my disillusionment would be. I want to know the truth, even if it's unpleasant.
The problem is that the concept of God is subjective. And if any God exists, then 1)It is a horrible communicator or 2) It does not really care because if it did, it would rely on more than ancient scripts, and it would take more care to ensure those scripts were accurate. (They don't appear accurate to me).
We exist, there may be an afterlife. I really do hope there is a spiritual plane where consciousness may continue. And there maybe judgement but these are huge IFs mostly based on our desire that there is more to life than our meager existence on this planet.
For fun please judge this statement: God can't prove its existence. If anyone disagrees, what real proof would be required? I'm not talking about those very subjective "feelings". ;)
This takes responsibility away from what God would want, to what we think is right. I believe this to be a more realistic approach.
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
It's easy "don't believe" as contrast to "don't know". I think it's a very important distinction for some Atheists who go beyond the "unknown" position into a more definitive negative view regarding deities. The problem as I see it is it is not so much that a deity may exist, it's all the purported rules and regs associated with said deity that makes it easy to cast doubt.
You've just made good points, Huntn. I'm sure that many, maybe even most, people have much the same knee-jerk reaction you have. I pointed out som distinctions, though, because nowadays, when many think unclearly, the ignore those distinctions. Each time I hear someone say "I feel" when he should say "I believe" or "I think," the phrase "I feel" reminds me of subjectivism.
Someone here, Lord Blackadder, I think, told me that I didn't understand the "pluralistic society" idea. I do understand it, and I know that many people disagree with me on many topics. I'm willing to learn from others. I even suspect that my false beliefs outnumber my true ones. But if disagreement among people proves anything, it proves that some people hold some false beliefs. If I believe that there's a God and you believe that there's no God, one of us is wrong. Today too many talk as though the freedom to believe what one wants to believe is more important than the truth.
Sure, it's often better to say "I don't know" rather than "I don't believe" because most people probably haven't learned the distinctions I've described. On the other hand, although knowing that a belief is true implies believing that it's true, believing that it's true doesn't imply knowing that it's true. If believing always implied knowing, everyone would be all-knowing.
Say I've deluded myself into believing that my honorary Brian is still living when he is, in fact, already dead. No one is helping me by saying that "Brian is still alive" is true for Bill but not for Brian's family." If I were deluded, the longer my delusion lasted, the more painful my disillusionment would be. I want to know the truth, even if it's unpleasant.
The problem is that the concept of God is subjective. And if any God exists, then 1)It is a horrible communicator or 2) It does not really care because if it did, it would rely on more than ancient scripts, and it would take more care to ensure those scripts were accurate. (They don't appear accurate to me).
We exist, there may be an afterlife. I really do hope there is a spiritual plane where consciousness may continue. And there maybe judgement but these are huge IFs mostly based on our desire that there is more to life than our meager existence on this planet.
For fun please judge this statement: God can't prove its existence. If anyone disagrees, what real proof would be required? I'm not talking about those very subjective "feelings". ;)
4look4rd
Apr 9, 01:11 PM
I still cannot believe that there aren't decent turn base strategy games on the iphone. Games like tactics ogre, final fantasy tactics, front mission, and the like would be excellent in a mobile device. I remember square announced FFT for the iphone a while back but it still was not released.
I would love if they ported PS1 and N64 classics to the iphone/ipad. Can you imagine playing FF7-9, Smash Brothers, Parasite Eve, platformers like Megaman, and even Resident Evil 1-3 (the RE4 port was dreadful, but I can see it being done properly).
I would love if they ported PS1 and N64 classics to the iphone/ipad. Can you imagine playing FF7-9, Smash Brothers, Parasite Eve, platformers like Megaman, and even Resident Evil 1-3 (the RE4 port was dreadful, but I can see it being done properly).
Apple OC
Mar 15, 11:54 PM
my guess keep cooling it with water. the reactors are shot and will have to be replaced as the sea water destroyed them.
I think they are trying to keep them cool and cool them off enough to be able to take the reactors out and replace them. This would allow the planet to keep on be used. Pumping concrete in them forces the reactor buildings to be worthless and stuck their were forever as they can not move the waste to a better location.
I hear you ... this story unfolding is so sad. That whole area of such a small country could virtually end up being uninhabited ... nobody will want to live anywhere near there.
I think they are trying to keep them cool and cool them off enough to be able to take the reactors out and replace them. This would allow the planet to keep on be used. Pumping concrete in them forces the reactor buildings to be worthless and stuck their were forever as they can not move the waste to a better location.
I hear you ... this story unfolding is so sad. That whole area of such a small country could virtually end up being uninhabited ... nobody will want to live anywhere near there.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 09:32 PM
Hmm, I might argue that what happens in your head may have personal value, in fact it may change your life, but it really has no bearing on the reality of our existence, just what we imagine it to be, and has no real right to be called "proof". It's jut faith if you see the distinction I'm trying to make.
It would still provide evidence for the individual concerned, right? It may have no bearing on the reality of our existence, but our existence doesn't matter. It's their existence that matters. Faith, true faith, involves a lot of introspection.
There's concrete reality and abstract reality, the world of the Forms if you like. It's in abstract reality that physical principles are proven, yet we couldn't see or feel them otherwise in the concrete world.
Thus, if the person has an epiphany, and then reflects on what just occurred logically, it could still be called proof.
It would still provide evidence for the individual concerned, right? It may have no bearing on the reality of our existence, but our existence doesn't matter. It's their existence that matters. Faith, true faith, involves a lot of introspection.
There's concrete reality and abstract reality, the world of the Forms if you like. It's in abstract reality that physical principles are proven, yet we couldn't see or feel them otherwise in the concrete world.
Thus, if the person has an epiphany, and then reflects on what just occurred logically, it could still be called proof.
brianbobcat
Mar 18, 02:45 AM
I use HandyLight to tether, but only occasionally. I wonder if they can detect that. I don't know what method the jailbreak way uses.
I did that exact thing today for the first time in like 6 months, and plan to do it again tomorrow. For the occasionally user, ME, paying the $5 or whatever Handylight cost at the time was well worth it. During my morning commute, on the few days I bring my laptop with me, and on the even fewer days I require a data connection, then AT&T can suck it. Other than that, I will continue to kill their network using my apps like Pandora, Netflix, and EyeTV, all of which are legitimate to use and kill their 3G a LOT more efficiently than the text-based websites I'm loading via my laptop.
I did that exact thing today for the first time in like 6 months, and plan to do it again tomorrow. For the occasionally user, ME, paying the $5 or whatever Handylight cost at the time was well worth it. During my morning commute, on the few days I bring my laptop with me, and on the even fewer days I require a data connection, then AT&T can suck it. Other than that, I will continue to kill their network using my apps like Pandora, Netflix, and EyeTV, all of which are legitimate to use and kill their 3G a LOT more efficiently than the text-based websites I'm loading via my laptop.
3N16MA
Apr 9, 02:33 PM
Edit: Post too long. I doubt anyone would read it. :D
0 comments:
Post a Comment