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
Habakuk
Apr 15, 10:30 AM
But are you saying homosexuals should change it if they could?
They should change maybe if they could (but as much as I know they can't and we have to acknowledge that fact) AND if they WANT to do so �because otherwise they wouldn't be able to stand their "handicap" and consider suicide. That would be easier than to change their sex with surgeries, heavy medicaments and so on.
Too many "if�" I know. But you asked.
Meet some likeminded persons who can handle being bullied sometimes. That happens to everyone in life and is no reason to get mad and desperate. Learn to get a "strong skin" and how to ignore those *******s. Essentially they are poor people loaded with psychic complexes.
I learned that by driving cars. First I always shouted and called them things (learned that silly behavior from my father). Then I realized that all those undisciplined drivers will kill or damage themselves from alone sooner or later�no need to play the role of an angry judge.
They should change maybe if they could (but as much as I know they can't and we have to acknowledge that fact) AND if they WANT to do so �because otherwise they wouldn't be able to stand their "handicap" and consider suicide. That would be easier than to change their sex with surgeries, heavy medicaments and so on.
Too many "if�" I know. But you asked.
Meet some likeminded persons who can handle being bullied sometimes. That happens to everyone in life and is no reason to get mad and desperate. Learn to get a "strong skin" and how to ignore those *******s. Essentially they are poor people loaded with psychic complexes.
I learned that by driving cars. First I always shouted and called them things (learned that silly behavior from my father). Then I realized that all those undisciplined drivers will kill or damage themselves from alone sooner or later�no need to play the role of an angry judge.
aricher
Aug 29, 10:57 AM
It's a very sad reality indeed.
TheRealTVGuy
Mar 18, 01:50 AM
Poor thing... he doesn't realize napster and limewire are history. Also, once the data hits my device, it's mine to do with as I please. Thank you very much.
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
By the way, I agree with you. Once you buy something, you should be able to use said device to its maximum potential. NOT have to pay to unlock its built-in features.
And by the way AT&T, all I want from you is a large pipe full of 1s and 0s. What I choose do do with them, or how I use and distribute them should be of no concern... Just one flat rate for a big, fast, data pipe.
Until then I'm stuck because I believe in playing by the rules, no matter how F-d up they are...
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
By the way, I agree with you. Once you buy something, you should be able to use said device to its maximum potential. NOT have to pay to unlock its built-in features.
And by the way AT&T, all I want from you is a large pipe full of 1s and 0s. What I choose do do with them, or how I use and distribute them should be of no concern... Just one flat rate for a big, fast, data pipe.
Until then I'm stuck because I believe in playing by the rules, no matter how F-d up they are...
lilo777
Apr 28, 03:18 PM
Huh? A 2008 MBP should have no problem running iTunes.
You keep forgetting that most people run Windows on their Mac computers and iTunes on Windows is junk (yeah, Apple demands that others - like Adobe - optimize their software, if only they did that themselves).
You keep forgetting that most people run Windows on their Mac computers and iTunes on Windows is junk (yeah, Apple demands that others - like Adobe - optimize their software, if only they did that themselves).
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:03 PM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
Sydde
Mar 14, 12:20 PM
This here page, fwiw (http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/contentView.do?contentId=8976200&programId=1073754912&pageTypeId=1073754893&contentType=EDITORIAL), says the carrier RR was exposed to thirty days radiation in an hour. There are more than 700 hours in a month. You do the math.
miles01110
May 2, 09:11 AM
lol
10 years and finally a malware attack.
Still unreal.
:D
Actually there's been malware for OS X since it was introduced. There is malware for every operating system.
Nothing can defend against user stupidity.
10 years and finally a malware attack.
Still unreal.
:D
Actually there's been malware for OS X since it was introduced. There is malware for every operating system.
Nothing can defend against user stupidity.
alexf
Aug 29, 11:45 AM
Who the hell listens to GreenPeace anymore.
Seriously.
A lot of people (and companies, such as Apple).
Seriously.
Seriously.
A lot of people (and companies, such as Apple).
Seriously.
r1ch4rd
Apr 22, 10:39 PM
Would it make a difference if a huge portion of what you've been exposed to, regarding religion/Christianity, was fundamentally incorrect? For example, there's no such place as hellfire; nobody is going to burn forever. Everybody isn't going to heaven; people will live right here on the earth. If you learned that a huge portion of those really crazy doctrines were simply wrong, would it cause you to view Christianity/religion differently?
I was thinking about this after appleguy123 mentioned the idea of hellfire. My initial thought is that the heaven/hell idea is boring! It's so much less interesting and inspiring than what really happens to you. The processes and work and how every living being fits into the ecosystem is just amazing. I think the idea that this has evolved over millions of years is just brilliant. Science adds such wonder to the world. The majesty of god has nothing on this!
I also love the idea that anybody can challenge an idea and change the way everybody thinks. How dull would it be if we just accepted everything at face value (ie. God did it!)?
I was thinking about this after appleguy123 mentioned the idea of hellfire. My initial thought is that the heaven/hell idea is boring! It's so much less interesting and inspiring than what really happens to you. The processes and work and how every living being fits into the ecosystem is just amazing. I think the idea that this has evolved over millions of years is just brilliant. Science adds such wonder to the world. The majesty of god has nothing on this!
I also love the idea that anybody can challenge an idea and change the way everybody thinks. How dull would it be if we just accepted everything at face value (ie. God did it!)?
100Teraflops
Apr 5, 05:53 PM
One off the top of my head is that everything costs money application wise, there is very little freeware.
Sounds like a personal problem. :D
If you use keyboard shortcuts a lot - e.g. window switching, copy& paste, start+anything, you may find it different when first using it.
+1 Good one! Actually, I did not use keyboard shortcuts exclusively until I switched to The Mac, but they are different.
Sounds like a personal problem. :D
If you use keyboard shortcuts a lot - e.g. window switching, copy& paste, start+anything, you may find it different when first using it.
+1 Good one! Actually, I did not use keyboard shortcuts exclusively until I switched to The Mac, but they are different.
KnightWRX
May 2, 03:35 PM
It can't affect the user's account if the user doesn't proceed with the installation. If the installer is closed without proceeding, nothing is affected.
You're not quite understanding what I'm saying or the situation here. Safari auto-downloads a zip file, runs it through Archive Utility which extracts something and then runs it.
It happens to be an installer this time. What if next time it's a malicious piece of code ? Why did it auto-execute, under what conditions and could these conditions be used to execute something other than an installer ?
Think a bit beyond the current situation. The malware authors do.
It also scans for Mac malware.
ie, not viruses. ClamAV's original intent was Linux e-mail servers and while it may have morphed into more, it's existence is not the proof of Mac viruses.
You're not quite understanding what I'm saying or the situation here. Safari auto-downloads a zip file, runs it through Archive Utility which extracts something and then runs it.
It happens to be an installer this time. What if next time it's a malicious piece of code ? Why did it auto-execute, under what conditions and could these conditions be used to execute something other than an installer ?
Think a bit beyond the current situation. The malware authors do.
It also scans for Mac malware.
ie, not viruses. ClamAV's original intent was Linux e-mail servers and while it may have morphed into more, it's existence is not the proof of Mac viruses.
ender land
Apr 26, 01:32 AM
If you strike a bias and confrontational tone, you get one in return.
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
I don't think I did and that certainly is not what I got in return.
I originally was not going to comment on this thread but the above post struck me as relatively interesting. Your first post is full of statements insinuating religious people are less intelligent, illogical, have something wrong with them, are stubborn, incapable of learning, etc.
You might get a useful answer if you instead asked "why do rational or intelligent people believe in religion" if you honestly want to learn more about what you address in the original post. Otherwise, you are not asking an earnest question, you are more or less stating "all religious people are unintelligent or irrational, what do you think?" Of course this would require acknowledging the possibility people might believe in religion for reasons other than fear, ignorance, stubbornness, etc.
Ultimately, the answer to this question will only occur if you can truthfully say "I fundamentally understand why someone is religious. They are because of A, B, C. The reason I disagree with this is because of X, Y, Z." You will not be able to fully answer your question from only the last part of that. Understanding the fundamental differences in what you believe and what someone else believes. And to be perfectly fair, there are probably a large number of religious people of all variety of faiths who probably could not defend their own faith (and in a more general case, real beliefs in general, religious/political/etc) and give any reasons of any significance why they hold the faith/beliefs they do.
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
I don't think I did and that certainly is not what I got in return.
I originally was not going to comment on this thread but the above post struck me as relatively interesting. Your first post is full of statements insinuating religious people are less intelligent, illogical, have something wrong with them, are stubborn, incapable of learning, etc.
You might get a useful answer if you instead asked "why do rational or intelligent people believe in religion" if you honestly want to learn more about what you address in the original post. Otherwise, you are not asking an earnest question, you are more or less stating "all religious people are unintelligent or irrational, what do you think?" Of course this would require acknowledging the possibility people might believe in religion for reasons other than fear, ignorance, stubbornness, etc.
Ultimately, the answer to this question will only occur if you can truthfully say "I fundamentally understand why someone is religious. They are because of A, B, C. The reason I disagree with this is because of X, Y, Z." You will not be able to fully answer your question from only the last part of that. Understanding the fundamental differences in what you believe and what someone else believes. And to be perfectly fair, there are probably a large number of religious people of all variety of faiths who probably could not defend their own faith (and in a more general case, real beliefs in general, religious/political/etc) and give any reasons of any significance why they hold the faith/beliefs they do.
ATD
Nov 2, 01:25 AM
How well does Maya scale when you use 2, 4, and 6 threads?
I'm not sure how the app (Maya) itself scales but the rendering in Mental Ray scales perfectly. 4 cpus render twice as fast as 2, 6 cpus render 3 times as fast as 2. That's if all the cpus are the same of course.
Is that what you were asking?
I'm not sure how the app (Maya) itself scales but the rendering in Mental Ray scales perfectly. 4 cpus render twice as fast as 2, 6 cpus render 3 times as fast as 2. That's if all the cpus are the same of course.
Is that what you were asking?
myamid
Sep 12, 07:05 PM
Yes, except the point is the iTunes/Movie interface with EyeHome does not have. What is cool is you can now use BOTH!!!
And the HD capabilities of iTV exceed Eyehome.
Considering the quality of the content on iTunes... I'd say what I stream is about on par so I'm not loosing out too much...
And your first comment only applied to DRM protected content... for anything else, EyeHome is totally integrated with iTunes, iPhoto and movies...
And the HD capabilities of iTV exceed Eyehome.
Considering the quality of the content on iTunes... I'd say what I stream is about on par so I'm not loosing out too much...
And your first comment only applied to DRM protected content... for anything else, EyeHome is totally integrated with iTunes, iPhoto and movies...
Edge100
Apr 15, 10:53 AM
Oh man. Utterly ridiculous. I'm trivializing the issue? No, I'm putting it in a more accurate and less political context. And you call that hate!
Second, don't drag me into the ridiculous "born gay / chose to be gay" false dichotomy. I swear that gays invented that one just to trick dimwitted social conservatives into parroting it. It's a really poor rendering of Nature vs. Nurture, which is a spectrum and not a binary condition. And it doesn't matter. It's the behavior which is either morally wrong or isn't, so pick your side and argue it. Just don't argue that a behavior is moral because you were "born that way". That opens up a seriously dangerous can of worms.
You also end up implying that because fat people weren't "born that way", it's ok to mistreat them.
And then you finish it off with "I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people"... well that's great. I never said I don't like homosexual people. But I guess you didn't quite accuse me of that with that sentence either. I don't care if you hate your mom and puppies either. You don't hate your mom, do you? And if you do, why? Why don't you love your mom?
Sigh.
Gay is not a "hip counterculture"; that implies it's a choice, pure and simple. It's a state of being. It's like being 6 feet tall, or having blue eyes, or brown hair. It's simply a characteristic of a person.
You know what IS a choice? Religion. And look at the lengths we go to to protect the right of every last believer to say and do the most ridiculous, hateful things.
Second, don't drag me into the ridiculous "born gay / chose to be gay" false dichotomy. I swear that gays invented that one just to trick dimwitted social conservatives into parroting it. It's a really poor rendering of Nature vs. Nurture, which is a spectrum and not a binary condition. And it doesn't matter. It's the behavior which is either morally wrong or isn't, so pick your side and argue it. Just don't argue that a behavior is moral because you were "born that way". That opens up a seriously dangerous can of worms.
You also end up implying that because fat people weren't "born that way", it's ok to mistreat them.
And then you finish it off with "I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people"... well that's great. I never said I don't like homosexual people. But I guess you didn't quite accuse me of that with that sentence either. I don't care if you hate your mom and puppies either. You don't hate your mom, do you? And if you do, why? Why don't you love your mom?
Sigh.
Gay is not a "hip counterculture"; that implies it's a choice, pure and simple. It's a state of being. It's like being 6 feet tall, or having blue eyes, or brown hair. It's simply a characteristic of a person.
You know what IS a choice? Religion. And look at the lengths we go to to protect the right of every last believer to say and do the most ridiculous, hateful things.
Peace
Sep 12, 06:22 PM
I am dying to see what this thing looks like. Does anyone have an image of it?
Please?!
look on the previous pages.I posted links
or go to engadget.com
Please?!
look on the previous pages.I posted links
or go to engadget.com
mattk3650
Apr 5, 09:23 PM
Wanna know the reason behind this. People on Verizon don't have the iPhone and aren't leaving the company so they just buy the next best thing.
If there's no iPhone on Verizon before 2011 I'm getting a Droid so hurry up Apple.
If there's no iPhone on Verizon before 2011 I'm getting a Droid so hurry up Apple.
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.
MacRumors
Sep 20, 12:28 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Besides announcing the number of movies that Disney has sold, iPod Observer notes (http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/28489) that CEO Bob Iger also provided some impressions of Apple's pre-announced iTV device which is due in the first quarter of 2007.
Iger describes the device's functionality:
It's wireless. It detects the presence of computers in your home; in a very simple way you designate the computer you want to feed it and it wirelessly feeds whatever you downloaded on iTunes which include videos, TV, music videos, movies or your entire iTunes music library to your television set.
And also explains that it is very easy to control and the appeal to content developers is to provide them a way to sell content to the DVR/TVR audience.
...if they've forgotten to set their TiVo device or their TVR or they just have no plan to do it but they want to watch an episode that they missed, they can go to iTunes, buy it for $1.99, [send it] to the set-top box source wirelessly and watch it on the television."
Iger also indicates that the device does indeed contain a hard drive... a fact that was not entirely clear from the preview.
MacCentral has posted (http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/itvfaq/index.php) a question/answer article for iTV which gives an overview of the device, in case you missed the original preview (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060912161621.shtml).
Long term Apple fans will remember that Apple almost launched an Apple Set Top Box (http://guides.macrumors.com/Apple_Set_Top_Box) years ago but it was never officially released. Interestingly, the system was described as "Apple's ITV system" (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2000/04/20000426204518.shtml) in a press-release, indicating that Apple has recycled this codename (iTV). The final name for the upcoming system has not yet been decided.
Besides announcing the number of movies that Disney has sold, iPod Observer notes (http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/28489) that CEO Bob Iger also provided some impressions of Apple's pre-announced iTV device which is due in the first quarter of 2007.
Iger describes the device's functionality:
It's wireless. It detects the presence of computers in your home; in a very simple way you designate the computer you want to feed it and it wirelessly feeds whatever you downloaded on iTunes which include videos, TV, music videos, movies or your entire iTunes music library to your television set.
And also explains that it is very easy to control and the appeal to content developers is to provide them a way to sell content to the DVR/TVR audience.
...if they've forgotten to set their TiVo device or their TVR or they just have no plan to do it but they want to watch an episode that they missed, they can go to iTunes, buy it for $1.99, [send it] to the set-top box source wirelessly and watch it on the television."
Iger also indicates that the device does indeed contain a hard drive... a fact that was not entirely clear from the preview.
MacCentral has posted (http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/itvfaq/index.php) a question/answer article for iTV which gives an overview of the device, in case you missed the original preview (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060912161621.shtml).
Long term Apple fans will remember that Apple almost launched an Apple Set Top Box (http://guides.macrumors.com/Apple_Set_Top_Box) years ago but it was never officially released. Interestingly, the system was described as "Apple's ITV system" (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2000/04/20000426204518.shtml) in a press-release, indicating that Apple has recycled this codename (iTV). The final name for the upcoming system has not yet been decided.
lilo777
Apr 28, 03:50 PM
Most people run windows on their macs? are you high?
Are you? Why do you think Windows 7 sells so well? All Mac users need to buy one.
Are you? Why do you think Windows 7 sells so well? All Mac users need to buy one.
Blipp
Apr 12, 11:26 AM
Boy, I've read the first few pages of this thread and have come to the overwhelming conclusion that most people posting differences on here between Windows/OSX simply don't know how or haven't learned yet how to fully use OS X. The majority of complaints seem to simply be people who don't know the key commands to do what they're blaming OS X for lacking. If something is that disruptive to your workflow why aren't you guys doing the minimal amount of research it would take to solve the issue?
Big-TDI-Guy
Mar 14, 08:32 PM
Should they have a full-on meltdown, yes there will be fallout detected around the globe - but I doubt the levels will be high enough to cause concern after thousands of miles to disperse.
As for the divine wind bit... To be fair, we did irradiate them first...
As for the divine wind bit... To be fair, we did irradiate them first...
justflie
Mar 18, 11:21 AM
Ok, so my comment about what don't people understand about unlimited was super snarky. Sorry.
What I meant was, If I can use 6GB (for example, I don't use this much) on my iPhone, what's the difference between that and 3GB iPhone and 3GB iPad (tethered)? If I am "entitled" to those 6GB or 4 or whatever on an unlimited plan, why does it matter how that bandwidth is distributed among my devices?
What I meant was, If I can use 6GB (for example, I don't use this much) on my iPhone, what's the difference between that and 3GB iPhone and 3GB iPad (tethered)? If I am "entitled" to those 6GB or 4 or whatever on an unlimited plan, why does it matter how that bandwidth is distributed among my devices?
0 comments:
Post a Comment