latergator116
Mar 19, 08:51 AM
No it is not. It's not theft in any defnition of the word! Seriously: if I walk in to a store and take CD from the shelf, and not pay it, I'm stealing. If I make an identical copy of the CD and leave the original on the shelf, I'm not stealing, I'm committing a copyright-infringment. But I'm not stealing.
Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?
I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven. Then they removed the ability to share/stream your songs from itunes to others. Little by little, you feel the DRM-noose tightening around your necks. It seems like a major PR-coup to me, when you have Apple reducing your rights little by little, and you guys are screaming "Yes! Reduce our rights even more!"
Well said. I have a feeling that the people blindly defending Apple and calling it "theft" don't quite understand how this program works. At least I hope that's the case.
Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?
I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven. Then they removed the ability to share/stream your songs from itunes to others. Little by little, you feel the DRM-noose tightening around your necks. It seems like a major PR-coup to me, when you have Apple reducing your rights little by little, and you guys are screaming "Yes! Reduce our rights even more!"
Well said. I have a feeling that the people blindly defending Apple and calling it "theft" don't quite understand how this program works. At least I hope that's the case.
Evangelion
Jul 13, 09:17 AM
Intel and AMD push hard to make sure that a dual-core processor is *licensed* as a single CPU.
And quite a few software-firms agree with them. Those that do not, are retarded. But my point remains: According to Intel, single-socket, dualcore system is a 1-way system, dual-socket, dual-core system is a 2-way system.
This is because there are a lot of big software packages that are priced according to the number of processors, often much more expensive for a 4-way than a 2-way.
And that's retarded. And those companies that do charge like that are not going to change their mind based on few paragraphs on intel.com.
So, Intel/AMD have an agenda that requires them to distort the meaning of the word "processor". They have to warp the word "processor" to justify the licensing stance.
So, your argument is basically that even though AMD and Intel disagree with you, you are still right, because this is just a vast conspiracy?
Finally, a source that doesn't have a marketing agenda says:
Like I have said: there are more than one way of looking at this thing. That is one way. The "other" way isn't really wrong either.
...enough said.
hopefully so. You seem to have some major problems accepting the fact that not everyone shares your viewpoint? So you then proceed to cram your viewpoint down other people's throats.
And quite a few software-firms agree with them. Those that do not, are retarded. But my point remains: According to Intel, single-socket, dualcore system is a 1-way system, dual-socket, dual-core system is a 2-way system.
This is because there are a lot of big software packages that are priced according to the number of processors, often much more expensive for a 4-way than a 2-way.
And that's retarded. And those companies that do charge like that are not going to change their mind based on few paragraphs on intel.com.
So, Intel/AMD have an agenda that requires them to distort the meaning of the word "processor". They have to warp the word "processor" to justify the licensing stance.
So, your argument is basically that even though AMD and Intel disagree with you, you are still right, because this is just a vast conspiracy?
Finally, a source that doesn't have a marketing agenda says:
Like I have said: there are more than one way of looking at this thing. That is one way. The "other" way isn't really wrong either.
...enough said.
hopefully so. You seem to have some major problems accepting the fact that not everyone shares your viewpoint? So you then proceed to cram your viewpoint down other people's throats.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 24, 11:30 PM
Well, only if you insist that yours is the ONLY What about the denominations that say "Here's what WE believe, but if someone believes something else, that's fine?"
That depends on what "that's fine" means. I don't want to coerce anyone into believing what I believe. Others are welcome to argue for what they believe when they agree with me and when they disagree with me. If you know that I'm mistaken about something, I you to show me that I'm mistaken about it because after you do that, I'll replace my false belief with the corresponding truth that you proved. But if "that's fine" implies relativism about truth, that implication is not fine, because relativism about truth, or at least some versions of it, are self-contradictory and every self-contradiction is always false.
Many atheists deny that God exists. Maybe they're right, but their denial implies that theism is either true or else false. If those atheists say that theism is nonsense, what do they mean by "nonsense?" If they mean that theism is neither true nor false, then they imply their denial is neither true nor false, since theism is the belief that at least one God exists, and "There is no God" is the denial of theism. By the law of the excluded middle, every proposition is either true or false, but not both.
That depends on what "that's fine" means. I don't want to coerce anyone into believing what I believe. Others are welcome to argue for what they believe when they agree with me and when they disagree with me. If you know that I'm mistaken about something, I you to show me that I'm mistaken about it because after you do that, I'll replace my false belief with the corresponding truth that you proved. But if "that's fine" implies relativism about truth, that implication is not fine, because relativism about truth, or at least some versions of it, are self-contradictory and every self-contradiction is always false.
Many atheists deny that God exists. Maybe they're right, but their denial implies that theism is either true or else false. If those atheists say that theism is nonsense, what do they mean by "nonsense?" If they mean that theism is neither true nor false, then they imply their denial is neither true nor false, since theism is the belief that at least one God exists, and "There is no God" is the denial of theism. By the law of the excluded middle, every proposition is either true or false, but not both.
Doc750
Mar 18, 11:22 AM
you people who think being charged for tethering is justified, exemplify what is wrong with this country. You would bend over and take anything up the rear end, just b/c it was written in a contract.
contracts are crap .. they mean nothing. Many of them don't hold up in a court, despite what they say. They are intentionally written in a manner to screw the consumer. They do this for as long as they can, until a court or a law tells them otherwise.
you deserve all the ******** these corporations are feeding you.
losers ....
I'm going to plug in my phone, and let netflix run for the next 4 hours, as a nice big FU to AT&T, and all you uncle tom's.
contracts are crap .. they mean nothing. Many of them don't hold up in a court, despite what they say. They are intentionally written in a manner to screw the consumer. They do this for as long as they can, until a court or a law tells them otherwise.
you deserve all the ******** these corporations are feeding you.
losers ....
I'm going to plug in my phone, and let netflix run for the next 4 hours, as a nice big FU to AT&T, and all you uncle tom's.
brianus
Sep 27, 08:44 AM
Yes, Intel will be shipping Clovertowns then - but when will Apple get around to putting them in systems? (November - well, that can wait for The Lord God Jobs' keynote in January, for sure.)
Most vendors are putting Merom systems in their customers' hands, but Apple is still shipping Yonahs in the MacIntelBooks.
I'm at IDF at Moscone, and most of the booths have Kentsfield or Clovertown systems running. (Apple isn't in the hall.)
I think that you're being very brave in assuming that Apple will ship quads in systems when Intel releases them...
Not to mention the fact that they waited a month and a half after Woodcrest was released to announce the Mac Pro and Intel XServes -- based not on Intel processor release schedules but on Mac conference schedules. Then again, this is just a "core bump", rather than a truly new product or chip; IIRC the Quad G5 followed fairly soon after the dual-core G5 processors were announced. Then again AGAIN, the XServes won't even be available 'till October; would they really update them again one or two months later?
Most vendors are putting Merom systems in their customers' hands, but Apple is still shipping Yonahs in the MacIntelBooks.
I'm at IDF at Moscone, and most of the booths have Kentsfield or Clovertown systems running. (Apple isn't in the hall.)
I think that you're being very brave in assuming that Apple will ship quads in systems when Intel releases them...
Not to mention the fact that they waited a month and a half after Woodcrest was released to announce the Mac Pro and Intel XServes -- based not on Intel processor release schedules but on Mac conference schedules. Then again, this is just a "core bump", rather than a truly new product or chip; IIRC the Quad G5 followed fairly soon after the dual-core G5 processors were announced. Then again AGAIN, the XServes won't even be available 'till October; would they really update them again one or two months later?
torbjoern
Apr 23, 01:43 AM
It's easier to admit being an atheist on the Internet than in the real world, as even the Dalai Lama seems to hate atheists. Although only a fool would say in his heart "there is no god", it should be legitimate to say "I want to see proof before I believe".
Oh - and about the universe not likely being made by chance: a designer must be more advanced than what he creates, and where does the designer come from? I'm not saying that there is no such designer, just that I don't see any reason to think about that in the first place. Wouldn't it be far more likely that the universe is made by itself rather than by some creating force being made by itself?
Oh - and about the universe not likely being made by chance: a designer must be more advanced than what he creates, and where does the designer come from? I'm not saying that there is no such designer, just that I don't see any reason to think about that in the first place. Wouldn't it be far more likely that the universe is made by itself rather than by some creating force being made by itself?
joepunk
Mar 15, 12:52 AM
Someone has a Geiger Counter reading set up in Tokyo (I assume that is the location). If someone can explain this that would be wonderful.
LINK (http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/geiger_index.html)
http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/uploaddata/radiation.jpg (http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/uploaddata/radiation.jpg)
LINK (http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/geiger_index.html)
http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/uploaddata/radiation.jpg (http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/uploaddata/radiation.jpg)
requieminadream
Apr 8, 11:02 PM
Was the MacNN headline "Apple Poaching Gaming PR Execs from Activision and Nintendo?" the true story? It would give a very different impression if the headline had been "PR Execs Abandoning Activision and Nintendo for Apple?" And in fact the article says that Grange "jumped ship".
Were they pushed or pulled?
Doesn't matter. Apple took in two head gaming executives. Whether they called them up or were called up, they now have major gaming players in their family. It's a pretty clear sign that they will be getting into gaming in some way.
Were they pushed or pulled?
Doesn't matter. Apple took in two head gaming executives. Whether they called them up or were called up, they now have major gaming players in their family. It's a pretty clear sign that they will be getting into gaming in some way.
dicklacara
Apr 12, 10:50 PM
Does anyone know if the new FC will take AVCHD files natively as Premiere CS5 does?
AVCHD...RED in supported and immediately rendered.
AVCHD...RED in supported and immediately rendered.
Blipp
Apr 13, 12:59 PM
Well it was rumoured for some time and we all waited with baited breath but was Apple seriously going to end the pro app that started them off to stardom? Sadly yes they have. What genius decides to make a pro app accessible to the masses? We who use FCP have to make money from our business, so we need a little bit of smoke and mirrors to make our business needed, otherwise our clients will just get a 16 year old in off the street, download FCP (sorry imovie Pro or whatever they have decided to call it) and there you go we are out of work!
I can see the business sense for Apple but they have now taken it all away from us who stayed by them for all these years.. Thanks Apple for the kick in the teeth. I am a ''Pro'' app user and have been for well over a decade and will be sad to move over to a new system but alas nothing lasts for ever.
RIP FCP
Born 2000 died 2011If a 16 year old kid getting their hands on your editing software is enough to put you out of business then you're probably already in trouble with or without this release. Also they clearly are still calling it Final Cut Pro, so nice try with that half-assed snub.
I can see the business sense for Apple but they have now taken it all away from us who stayed by them for all these years.. Thanks Apple for the kick in the teeth. I am a ''Pro'' app user and have been for well over a decade and will be sad to move over to a new system but alas nothing lasts for ever.
RIP FCP
Born 2000 died 2011If a 16 year old kid getting their hands on your editing software is enough to put you out of business then you're probably already in trouble with or without this release. Also they clearly are still calling it Final Cut Pro, so nice try with that half-assed snub.
The DRis
Mar 18, 12:15 PM
I'm going to plug in my phone, and let netflix run for the next 4 hours, as a nice big FU to AT&T, and all you uncle tom's.
Exactly what I was thinking. Screw the next 4 hours, for the next month I'm going to non-stop stream audio and video. I even disabled WiFi so I don't use my works connection I use only AT&T's.
Blow me ATT.
Netflix non-stop for the next month
Exactly what I was thinking. Screw the next 4 hours, for the next month I'm going to non-stop stream audio and video. I even disabled WiFi so I don't use my works connection I use only AT&T's.
Blow me ATT.
Netflix non-stop for the next month
G58
Feb 22, 01:37 PM
...I don't think Apple has done anything exceptional. They built off of their popular iPod brand. Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod. Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start.
I don't really know where to begin to reply to this simplistic tripe.
In your world, are the policemen made of sugar by any chance?
You: "don't think Apple has done anything exceptional." Buy a Nexus one then.
"They built off of their popular iPod brand."
How did they create the touchscreen iPhone BRAND from the iPod Touch BRAND - a product that was launches after it?
iPhone Release date: June 29, 2007
iPod Touch 1st generation Release date: September 13, 2007
Brands don't build technology. Brands only build limited awareness and trust. But if the iPhone wasn't as good as it is, and as new as it was when it was first released, it would not only not have benefited from any brand benefits created by previous iPod model, it would have failed, and damaged the iPod brand too.
"Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod."
If this was the case, it would be Nokia and RIM duking it out now. Your entire theory is immature and utterly flawed. It's Apple's business model that created this situation, aided and abetted by an utterly moribund mobile phone market prior to their intervention.
"Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start."
Here I agree, but not for any of the reasons you've proposed. Apple's ace is OS X. The version used to power the iPhone is a cut down version of the full OS with a touch screen UI. Every other mobile manufacturer was always going to be at a disadvantage as soon as Apple decided to play in their pool.
I don't really know where to begin to reply to this simplistic tripe.
In your world, are the policemen made of sugar by any chance?
You: "don't think Apple has done anything exceptional." Buy a Nexus one then.
"They built off of their popular iPod brand."
How did they create the touchscreen iPhone BRAND from the iPod Touch BRAND - a product that was launches after it?
iPhone Release date: June 29, 2007
iPod Touch 1st generation Release date: September 13, 2007
Brands don't build technology. Brands only build limited awareness and trust. But if the iPhone wasn't as good as it is, and as new as it was when it was first released, it would not only not have benefited from any brand benefits created by previous iPod model, it would have failed, and damaged the iPod brand too.
"Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod."
If this was the case, it would be Nokia and RIM duking it out now. Your entire theory is immature and utterly flawed. It's Apple's business model that created this situation, aided and abetted by an utterly moribund mobile phone market prior to their intervention.
"Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start."
Here I agree, but not for any of the reasons you've proposed. Apple's ace is OS X. The version used to power the iPhone is a cut down version of the full OS with a touch screen UI. Every other mobile manufacturer was always going to be at a disadvantage as soon as Apple decided to play in their pool.
MACRUS
Apr 13, 01:43 AM
I think I'm supposed to feel insulted by your ignorance. but I don't. If you want to make a counter argument, you can start by being honest about what I was saying.
you made a mistake. you should have said. "I think I'm supposed to feel insulted by "MY" ignorance. and I would have said. yes you should because no one in their right mind would think to use an application's automatic feature and call the results suitable for delivery.
AHAHA you have me laughing... only an Idiota would think that there is an application with one-click color correction and use such feature in a professional environment. You should change your user name to something else. usually when geeks speak they know what they are talking about. you obviously do not. do not bother to answer I do not have time to read your childish, uneducated or uninformative posts.
you made a mistake. you should have said. "I think I'm supposed to feel insulted by "MY" ignorance. and I would have said. yes you should because no one in their right mind would think to use an application's automatic feature and call the results suitable for delivery.
AHAHA you have me laughing... only an Idiota would think that there is an application with one-click color correction and use such feature in a professional environment. You should change your user name to something else. usually when geeks speak they know what they are talking about. you obviously do not. do not bother to answer I do not have time to read your childish, uneducated or uninformative posts.
killr_b
Jul 12, 04:55 PM
My point exactly...Mac Snobbery at it's finest.
Yeah mister 6" PeeCee, you must've missed where Steve Jobs said something along the lines of, "BMW and Mercedes have about a 14% market share. What's wrong with being a BMW or a Mercedes?"
This is my philosophy as well. I don't drive a Ford. I don't want XP. I don't want an HP. So suck your PC.
Yeah mister 6" PeeCee, you must've missed where Steve Jobs said something along the lines of, "BMW and Mercedes have about a 14% market share. What's wrong with being a BMW or a Mercedes?"
This is my philosophy as well. I don't drive a Ford. I don't want XP. I don't want an HP. So suck your PC.
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).
therevolution
Mar 18, 05:08 PM
Sorry, i didn't read every post so this may be repeatative but...
why would you pay for something you don't want
To prove a point: DRM is basically useless.
why would you pay for something you don't want
To prove a point: DRM is basically useless.
Backtothemac
Oct 8, 10:02 AM
Yea, OSX uses libraries, but not specifically poorly designed libraries like winblows. .dll files are attributed to the majority of crashes on a PC. The structure of windows .dll and libraries in Unix are totally different. And yes, the X 86 structure sucks. ;)
Stridder44
Sep 20, 03:33 AM
Look at your hard drive usage, Music takes up a significant amount of it. Why does it need to be kept on your local machine if iTV provides a network?
Thats an interesting point. I dont know though, something makes me cringe about not having my prized music library on my own computer (fear of losing it I guess?)
Thats an interesting point. I dont know though, something makes me cringe about not having my prized music library on my own computer (fear of losing it I guess?)
Bonte
Sep 22, 07:47 AM
Either way, I am still willing to bet for a large family, cable is significantly cheaper (especially when you take into account all the TV watched for "background noise" (such as the food network)).
Here in Europe we don't have that problem so much but i'm going crazy if i have to watch all the dumb advertising on the US networks, you guys pay much more then just the cable cost. Every 5 minutes there's a commercial brake and the endless repeating of the facts after it. I am willing to pay not to have these annoyances.
Here in Europe we don't have that problem so much but i'm going crazy if i have to watch all the dumb advertising on the US networks, you guys pay much more then just the cable cost. Every 5 minutes there's a commercial brake and the endless repeating of the facts after it. I am willing to pay not to have these annoyances.
Diavilo1
Sep 12, 03:21 PM
Definately has piqued my interest. I may have missed this but does it have a TV Tuner?
archipellago
May 2, 05:10 PM
What are you even talking about?
I simply commented on the fact that you must ask Google why they abandoned MS Windows for commercial use and that Google knows better.
You come with an insulting post claiming they know more than me.
Good if they know more than me and I don't have an issue but mind your own business sir.
Sorry, I find you hard to comprehend, maybe because English is my first language?
anyway...
Google employees must use Macs...?
probably tells you all you need to know about their internal IT team.
a nonsensical decision given that IE still has more than half the browser market and Macs can't run it.
security issues are staff issues...
I simply commented on the fact that you must ask Google why they abandoned MS Windows for commercial use and that Google knows better.
You come with an insulting post claiming they know more than me.
Good if they know more than me and I don't have an issue but mind your own business sir.
Sorry, I find you hard to comprehend, maybe because English is my first language?
anyway...
Google employees must use Macs...?
probably tells you all you need to know about their internal IT team.
a nonsensical decision given that IE still has more than half the browser market and Macs can't run it.
security issues are staff issues...
skunk
Apr 24, 11:00 AM
So why would you need to adapt your beliefs, unless of course the god doesn't exist and the Bible was just written by a bunch of blokes performing a rather cynical political exercise 2,000 years ago.How could you even think such a thing?
:eek:
:eek:
OllyW
Apr 13, 02:41 AM
I bet the guy who destroyed iMovie 06 has something to do with this. Lets just hope I'm wrong.
Do you mean the same guy who led the team that created Final Cut Pro in the first place? ;)
Do you mean the same guy who led the team that created Final Cut Pro in the first place? ;)
paul4339
Apr 28, 01:07 PM
Well it doesn't matter what you think either then! :p
And that's a stupid argument, I'm pretty sure 99% of people on this forum understood what I meant when I said, a computer shouldn't need a computer to be usable. :rolleyes:
I could be wrong, but I don't think that was his point... I think he meant it doesn't matter if you think it should be part of the shipment market share report or not.
That is, I think his point is even if it's not considered a computer, the report is just showing what people are buying (where the market is heading)
And that's a stupid argument, I'm pretty sure 99% of people on this forum understood what I meant when I said, a computer shouldn't need a computer to be usable. :rolleyes:
I could be wrong, but I don't think that was his point... I think he meant it doesn't matter if you think it should be part of the shipment market share report or not.
That is, I think his point is even if it's not considered a computer, the report is just showing what people are buying (where the market is heading)
0 comments:
Post a Comment