Rt&Dzine
Apr 24, 12:05 PM
It's about power and control- nothing more.
And Fear.
And Fear.
wnurse
Mar 19, 10:54 PM
Why don't you try it and find out? :)
I would. I don't care if apple cancels me or not. So what if they cancel me? Am i going to get poorer?. How a company makes money by deliberatly losing customers is beyond me. Are you a apple employee or stockholder?. You sound pretty desperate. You should sell your stock quick or put your resume out there but stop posting silly stuff. As noted before, apple is not going to cancel anyone's account.
I would. I don't care if apple cancels me or not. So what if they cancel me? Am i going to get poorer?. How a company makes money by deliberatly losing customers is beyond me. Are you a apple employee or stockholder?. You sound pretty desperate. You should sell your stock quick or put your resume out there but stop posting silly stuff. As noted before, apple is not going to cancel anyone's account.
Dagless
Apr 9, 08:17 AM
Sony and Nintendo really can't compete because they are addicted to the double digit price points for games. But who is going to pay $28 for Mario anymore when you can get Angry Birds for $2.
New Mario DS has sold 25 million copies. It's the 9th best selling game of all time. So clearly a lot of people are buying Mario for �25 when Angry Birds is 59p.
Pokemon Black and White is new (released in Japan late last year, here just last month), �25-30 and has sold 10 million copies. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
WiiFit Plus has been out a couple of years (like Angry Birds), and costs between �20-70 and has sold 18.72 million copies/units. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
New Mario DS has sold 25 million copies. It's the 9th best selling game of all time. So clearly a lot of people are buying Mario for �25 when Angry Birds is 59p.
Pokemon Black and White is new (released in Japan late last year, here just last month), �25-30 and has sold 10 million copies. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
WiiFit Plus has been out a couple of years (like Angry Birds), and costs between �20-70 and has sold 18.72 million copies/units. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
faroZ06
Apr 20, 06:15 PM
The average user is stupid when it comes to using Windows, installing random programs, clicking yes to popups in porn sites.
Using your analogy, Apple tends to like to check the type of oil before it goes into the car, to avoid bad things from happening.
Most people don't know what they're doing and they DO like having Apple hold their hands.
I agree. The reason I won't jailbreak until my iPod Touch is old is because the programmers who make stuff on Cydia are @#$%ing morons sometimes. Plenty of horrible apps.
And to think that the ENTIRE Droid market is unregulated? More and more viruses will appear. You can't get a virus on an iPhone unless Apple somehow lets it in. Even then it would have to be user-initiated since it is UNIX.
Using your analogy, Apple tends to like to check the type of oil before it goes into the car, to avoid bad things from happening.
Most people don't know what they're doing and they DO like having Apple hold their hands.
I agree. The reason I won't jailbreak until my iPod Touch is old is because the programmers who make stuff on Cydia are @#$%ing morons sometimes. Plenty of horrible apps.
And to think that the ENTIRE Droid market is unregulated? More and more viruses will appear. You can't get a virus on an iPhone unless Apple somehow lets it in. Even then it would have to be user-initiated since it is UNIX.
asphalt-proof
Sep 21, 10:40 AM
I think the opposite. iTV is just another "pod" using a single computer as a separate node. The Apple paradigm here would be to release iTV and then to have a separate cable-in device (EyeTV essentially) at your computer that would serve as the DVR to load and control shows on your central computer, which could then be wirelessly distributed to iTVs throughout the house. Just buy one giant hard drive rather than having a bunch all over the place.
Apple has repeatedly said that they don't think people want a computer in their living room (to surf the net, etc). There does have to be a computer someplace, however, in this case acting as an entertainment server for iTV, iPods, etc.
This explanation makes so much sense to me. I was thinking about this today. I am not a A/V person at all. I can barely hook up my DVD player to my TV. But I am pretty good with my iMac, getting content on it and off it to my iPod. THe model that makes sense to me is I get the content from my computer and watch it on my TV. (note: I don't have cable so I don't worry aobut getting content from my TV to my computer. But the elgato system seems pretty easy to use.) I wonder if I would be able to use the elgato Hybrid TV to hook my xbox up to my computer but still play it on my TV though the iTV system? The reason I ask is it would cut down on clutter in the living room.
Apple has repeatedly said that they don't think people want a computer in their living room (to surf the net, etc). There does have to be a computer someplace, however, in this case acting as an entertainment server for iTV, iPods, etc.
This explanation makes so much sense to me. I was thinking about this today. I am not a A/V person at all. I can barely hook up my DVD player to my TV. But I am pretty good with my iMac, getting content on it and off it to my iPod. THe model that makes sense to me is I get the content from my computer and watch it on my TV. (note: I don't have cable so I don't worry aobut getting content from my TV to my computer. But the elgato system seems pretty easy to use.) I wonder if I would be able to use the elgato Hybrid TV to hook my xbox up to my computer but still play it on my TV though the iTV system? The reason I ask is it would cut down on clutter in the living room.
eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 08:10 AM
If a law is wrong, we have courts, the legislature and the free press to get such laws changed.
If you break the law in an act of "civil disobedience" you very well may go to jail or be sued. That's exactly what the heros of the civil rights movement like Dr. King and Rosa Parks did. (OMG, I can't believe we're using examples like this compared to music files!) They willfully broke the law, and in doing so brought attention to an injustice that eventually got the system changed.
So, if you sincerely believe that the Apple iTMS TOS (or any other EULA) is doing you an injustice, go right ahead and break it. Just be sure to shout it from the mountain tops so you can be sued and be covered by the news stations as being abused by an evil system. But, if you're just wanting things to be the way you want them, then you're just breaking the law for your own convenience. Live with your crime, enjoy your non-DRM'ed AAC files and stop trying to convince us that what you are doing should be legal. To be clear, I'm not saying you are BAD, as far as I care, you're no more bad than I am when I drive over the speed limit (so easy to do wih an RSX-S! :P) or take a pen home from work.
If you break the law in an act of "civil disobedience" you very well may go to jail or be sued. That's exactly what the heros of the civil rights movement like Dr. King and Rosa Parks did. (OMG, I can't believe we're using examples like this compared to music files!) They willfully broke the law, and in doing so brought attention to an injustice that eventually got the system changed.
So, if you sincerely believe that the Apple iTMS TOS (or any other EULA) is doing you an injustice, go right ahead and break it. Just be sure to shout it from the mountain tops so you can be sued and be covered by the news stations as being abused by an evil system. But, if you're just wanting things to be the way you want them, then you're just breaking the law for your own convenience. Live with your crime, enjoy your non-DRM'ed AAC files and stop trying to convince us that what you are doing should be legal. To be clear, I'm not saying you are BAD, as far as I care, you're no more bad than I am when I drive over the speed limit (so easy to do wih an RSX-S! :P) or take a pen home from work.
peharri
Sep 23, 10:25 AM
Perhaps we've just been exposed to different sources of info. I viewed the sept 12 presentation in its entirety, and have read virtually all the reports and comments on macrumors, appleinsider, think secret, engadget, the wall street journal, and maccentral, among others. It was disney chief bob iger who was quoted saying iTV had a hard drive; that was generally interpreted (except by maccentral, which took the statement literally) to mean it had some sort of storage, be it flash or a small HD, and that it would be for buffering/caching to allow streaming of huge files at relatively slow (for the purpose) wireless speeds.
I've read absolutely everything I can too and I have to disagree with you still.
It makes absolutely no sense for Bob Iger to have been told there's "some sort of storage" if this isn't storage in any conventional sense. Storage to a layman means somewhere where you store things, not something transitory used by the machine in a way you can't fathom. So, we have two factors here:
First - Bob's been talking about a hard disk. That absolutely doesn't point at a cache, it's too expensive to be a cache.
Second - Even if Bob got the technology wrong, he's been told the machine has "storage". That's not a term you generally use to mean "transitory storage for temporary objects".
The suggestion Bob's talking about a cache is being made, in my view, because people know it'll need some sort of caching to overcome 802.11/etc temporary bandwidth issues (Hmm. Kind of. You guys do know we're talking about way less bandwidth requirements than a DVD right - and that a DVD-formatted MPEG2 will transmit realtime on an 802.11g link? What's more, for 99% of Internet users, their DSL connection has less bandwidth than their wireless link, even if they're on the other side of the house with someone else's WAN in range and on the same channel. Yes, 802.11 suffers drop-outs, but we're talking about needing seconds worth of video effected, not hours) As such, you're trying to find evidence that it'll deal with caching.
YOU DON'T NEED TO. A few megabytes of RAM is enough to ensure smooth playback will happen. This is a non-problem. Everyone who's going this route is putting way too much thought into designing a solution to something that isn't hard to solve.
Nonetheless, because it's an "issue", everything is being interpreted in that light. If there's "storage", it must be because of caching! Well, in my opinion, if there's storage, it's almost certainly to do with storage. You don't need it for caching.
I'm trying to imagine a conversation with Bob Iger where the issue of flash or hard disk space for caching content to avoid 802.11 issues would come up, and where the word "storage" would be used purely in that context. It's hard. I don't see them talking about caches to Iger. It makes no sense. They might just as well talk about DCT transforms or the Quicktime API.
I'm perfectly willing to be wrong. But i don't think i am. Let's continue reading the reports and revisit this subject here in a day or two.
Sure. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong too. I'm certainly less sure of it than I am of the iPhone rumours being bunk.
Regardless of the truth, I have to say the iTV makes little sense unless, regardless of whether it contains a hard disk or not, it can stream content directly from the iTS. Without the possibility of being used as a computer-less media hub, it becomes an overly expensive and complicated solution for what could more easily be done by making a bolt-on similar to that awful TubePort concept.
I'm 99% sure the machine is intended as an independent hub that can use iTunes libraries on the same network but can also go to the iTS directly and view content straight from there (and possibly other sources, such as Google Video.) I can see why Apple would make that. I can see why it would take a $300 machine to do that and make it practical. I see the importance of the iTS and the potential dangers to it as the cellphone displaces the iPod, and Apple's need to shore it up. I can see studio executives "not getting it" with online movies if those movies can only be seen on laptops, PCs, and iPods.
If Apple does force the thing to need a computer, I think they need to come out with an 'iTunes server' box that can fufill the same role, and it has to be cheap.
I've read absolutely everything I can too and I have to disagree with you still.
It makes absolutely no sense for Bob Iger to have been told there's "some sort of storage" if this isn't storage in any conventional sense. Storage to a layman means somewhere where you store things, not something transitory used by the machine in a way you can't fathom. So, we have two factors here:
First - Bob's been talking about a hard disk. That absolutely doesn't point at a cache, it's too expensive to be a cache.
Second - Even if Bob got the technology wrong, he's been told the machine has "storage". That's not a term you generally use to mean "transitory storage for temporary objects".
The suggestion Bob's talking about a cache is being made, in my view, because people know it'll need some sort of caching to overcome 802.11/etc temporary bandwidth issues (Hmm. Kind of. You guys do know we're talking about way less bandwidth requirements than a DVD right - and that a DVD-formatted MPEG2 will transmit realtime on an 802.11g link? What's more, for 99% of Internet users, their DSL connection has less bandwidth than their wireless link, even if they're on the other side of the house with someone else's WAN in range and on the same channel. Yes, 802.11 suffers drop-outs, but we're talking about needing seconds worth of video effected, not hours) As such, you're trying to find evidence that it'll deal with caching.
YOU DON'T NEED TO. A few megabytes of RAM is enough to ensure smooth playback will happen. This is a non-problem. Everyone who's going this route is putting way too much thought into designing a solution to something that isn't hard to solve.
Nonetheless, because it's an "issue", everything is being interpreted in that light. If there's "storage", it must be because of caching! Well, in my opinion, if there's storage, it's almost certainly to do with storage. You don't need it for caching.
I'm trying to imagine a conversation with Bob Iger where the issue of flash or hard disk space for caching content to avoid 802.11 issues would come up, and where the word "storage" would be used purely in that context. It's hard. I don't see them talking about caches to Iger. It makes no sense. They might just as well talk about DCT transforms or the Quicktime API.
I'm perfectly willing to be wrong. But i don't think i am. Let's continue reading the reports and revisit this subject here in a day or two.
Sure. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong too. I'm certainly less sure of it than I am of the iPhone rumours being bunk.
Regardless of the truth, I have to say the iTV makes little sense unless, regardless of whether it contains a hard disk or not, it can stream content directly from the iTS. Without the possibility of being used as a computer-less media hub, it becomes an overly expensive and complicated solution for what could more easily be done by making a bolt-on similar to that awful TubePort concept.
I'm 99% sure the machine is intended as an independent hub that can use iTunes libraries on the same network but can also go to the iTS directly and view content straight from there (and possibly other sources, such as Google Video.) I can see why Apple would make that. I can see why it would take a $300 machine to do that and make it practical. I see the importance of the iTS and the potential dangers to it as the cellphone displaces the iPod, and Apple's need to shore it up. I can see studio executives "not getting it" with online movies if those movies can only be seen on laptops, PCs, and iPods.
If Apple does force the thing to need a computer, I think they need to come out with an 'iTunes server' box that can fufill the same role, and it has to be cheap.
javajedi
Oct 8, 04:33 PM
I'm actually not a Windows developer (hence my nick :) ) but from what I understand you can do most of your fp stuff using the P4's vector engine. I also wanted to add to my first post that in integer ops, the G4 only achives clock parity. It goes without saying that the massively clocked P4's will well outperform a G4 in integer.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 08:48 AM
The tangible item is the smartphone hardware itself. Thats like saying the battle between Sony and Samsung LCD tv's, isnt exactly about tv's... its about Google TV(Sony) vs Samsung Smart TV.
Then why don't they show studies that compare Samsung versus LG versus Motorola smart phone hardware sales? Why are they constantly talking about the "Android" share?
Then why don't they show studies that compare Samsung versus LG versus Motorola smart phone hardware sales? Why are they constantly talking about the "Android" share?
MacCoaster
Oct 10, 04:10 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
These test that this guy puts up are crap! The Athlon is overclocked to be a 2100+, none of the systems have the most current OS. I personally have seen great variations in his tests over the years, and personally, I don't buy it. Why test for single processor functions? The Dual is a DUAL! All of the major Apps are dual aware, as is the OS!
Try that with XP Home.
Quoting your OLD post...
Why would anyone run XP Home on a dual processor. They should be running Windows XP Pro.
But to play the devil's advocate... let's see... Windows can use up to 32 processors (Windows .NET). Try that with Mac OS X! Oh wait, you can't. Of course, no 32-way Power Macs available.
BTW, Steve Jobs has made it clear that since his time at NeXT that it's the software, damn it! If it weren't for his work at NeXT, we would not have the Cocoa library nor Mac OS X.
These test that this guy puts up are crap! The Athlon is overclocked to be a 2100+, none of the systems have the most current OS. I personally have seen great variations in his tests over the years, and personally, I don't buy it. Why test for single processor functions? The Dual is a DUAL! All of the major Apps are dual aware, as is the OS!
Try that with XP Home.
Quoting your OLD post...
Why would anyone run XP Home on a dual processor. They should be running Windows XP Pro.
But to play the devil's advocate... let's see... Windows can use up to 32 processors (Windows .NET). Try that with Mac OS X! Oh wait, you can't. Of course, no 32-way Power Macs available.
BTW, Steve Jobs has made it clear that since his time at NeXT that it's the software, damn it! If it weren't for his work at NeXT, we would not have the Cocoa library nor Mac OS X.
alex_ant
Oct 12, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
i agree with you that pcs are faster and that some mac users will not see the facts today, but what major advantage does the faster pc give to me (the average user with e-mail, internet, office, and sometimes light graphics and digital photos)?
IMO, not much. A couple things would be the ability to do all of those a bit faster, but that only makes a difference if you're being held back by your Mac at the moment.
2 points: 1) I think the computing industry has historically been all about the trickle-down effect, where the highest of high tech starts at the very top - the high-end workstations, the mainframes, etc. - and trickles down into low-end workstations/servers, then desktops, then consumer electronics. This could be seen as a technological entropy of sorts, and if you look at it as a hierarchy, the PC (hardware wise) is closer to the root (top level) of that hierarchy at the moment. What that means is that it's closer to being the latest & greatest than the Mac is, which puts it in a position whereby its relative speed advantages are self-perpetuating, in that being closer to the source of the newest, best technology, it has a chance to incorporate that technology before the Mac does, thus raising itself up on the hierarchy yet further. This explains why PCs have been eating into the specialty markets of SGI and Sun (and Apple) and show no signs of stopping. The Mac is a fantastic platform, but it has some formidable competition that is driven by the pure force of the capitalist marketplace, and when you look at it that way, you realize how amazing it is that it has held on all this time.
2) Software is always getting more featureful and less efficient. (With a few exceptions, like the way the performance of OS X has improved between the public beta and Jaguar.) The kind of Mac that's adequate now (say an 800MHz TiBook) will probably seem quite slow in three years, whereas if you buy a top-of-the-line PC notebook today, it could easily last 5 or more. With OS X, the days of Macs lasting 5+ years are gone, at least for the moment. We do things with our computers today that we didn't do with them 5 years ago - mainly due to the trickle-down effect. We do pro-quality video editing on consumer-class machines, our resolutions and color depths are higher, our digital cameras take higher-resolution photos, our audio & video is encoded with more processor-intensive compression codecs, and hell, our email client has a little tray that slides out! (Imagine animation like that on a ca. 1997 computer running a ca. 1997 OS!) A Mac will always be able to check e-mail, but so will a Performa or a 486. But I don't know how many people Performas and 486s appeal to. Probably not many... you tell me why. :)
Alex
i agree with you that pcs are faster and that some mac users will not see the facts today, but what major advantage does the faster pc give to me (the average user with e-mail, internet, office, and sometimes light graphics and digital photos)?
IMO, not much. A couple things would be the ability to do all of those a bit faster, but that only makes a difference if you're being held back by your Mac at the moment.
2 points: 1) I think the computing industry has historically been all about the trickle-down effect, where the highest of high tech starts at the very top - the high-end workstations, the mainframes, etc. - and trickles down into low-end workstations/servers, then desktops, then consumer electronics. This could be seen as a technological entropy of sorts, and if you look at it as a hierarchy, the PC (hardware wise) is closer to the root (top level) of that hierarchy at the moment. What that means is that it's closer to being the latest & greatest than the Mac is, which puts it in a position whereby its relative speed advantages are self-perpetuating, in that being closer to the source of the newest, best technology, it has a chance to incorporate that technology before the Mac does, thus raising itself up on the hierarchy yet further. This explains why PCs have been eating into the specialty markets of SGI and Sun (and Apple) and show no signs of stopping. The Mac is a fantastic platform, but it has some formidable competition that is driven by the pure force of the capitalist marketplace, and when you look at it that way, you realize how amazing it is that it has held on all this time.
2) Software is always getting more featureful and less efficient. (With a few exceptions, like the way the performance of OS X has improved between the public beta and Jaguar.) The kind of Mac that's adequate now (say an 800MHz TiBook) will probably seem quite slow in three years, whereas if you buy a top-of-the-line PC notebook today, it could easily last 5 or more. With OS X, the days of Macs lasting 5+ years are gone, at least for the moment. We do things with our computers today that we didn't do with them 5 years ago - mainly due to the trickle-down effect. We do pro-quality video editing on consumer-class machines, our resolutions and color depths are higher, our digital cameras take higher-resolution photos, our audio & video is encoded with more processor-intensive compression codecs, and hell, our email client has a little tray that slides out! (Imagine animation like that on a ca. 1997 computer running a ca. 1997 OS!) A Mac will always be able to check e-mail, but so will a Performa or a 486. But I don't know how many people Performas and 486s appeal to. Probably not many... you tell me why. :)
Alex
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 06:16 PM
Everyone, as usual I'm answering posts in a non-chronological order. I'm not ignoring anyone. I need to think hard about what to write about a post by Gelfin. So I may need two or three days to think about it.
Eraserhead wants peer-reviewed scientific articles, so I'll look for them, too. I already have an article in mind by a secular author named "Spitzer" who helped the American Psychiatric Association normalize homosexuality before he changed his mind about that normalization.
Meanwhile, please listen to Nicolosi's first answer in video 3 of the first set of videos, the last part of the three-part interview, where he says that homosexuals have a right to live a gay lifestyle (http://www.josephnicolosi.com/videos2/). That doesn't sound like what a brainwasher would say, does it?
Eraserhead wants peer-reviewed scientific articles, so I'll look for them, too. I already have an article in mind by a secular author named "Spitzer" who helped the American Psychiatric Association normalize homosexuality before he changed his mind about that normalization.
Meanwhile, please listen to Nicolosi's first answer in video 3 of the first set of videos, the last part of the three-part interview, where he says that homosexuals have a right to live a gay lifestyle (http://www.josephnicolosi.com/videos2/). That doesn't sound like what a brainwasher would say, does it?
leftPCbehind209
Apr 12, 10:25 PM
Does anyone know if the new FC will take AVCHD files natively as Premiere CS5 does?
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 11:30 AM
So there is no big
BUT
?
Really?
;)
You are just being disingenuous. I think you just did not quote the part that says it is only OK with the Catholic church if gay men and women do not give physical expression to their gay "inclinations".
Makes it sound like leprosy�
All I'm doing is trying to argue that sure, there's plenty of stuff in there you're going to disagree with. And that's fine and I'm sure you'd have a lot of compelling arguments to refute the points.
But it's not *hateful*. I don't see how a rational being could find that hateful. That's just something that shuts down discussion and mischaracterizes an opponent.
BUT
?
Really?
;)
You are just being disingenuous. I think you just did not quote the part that says it is only OK with the Catholic church if gay men and women do not give physical expression to their gay "inclinations".
Makes it sound like leprosy�
All I'm doing is trying to argue that sure, there's plenty of stuff in there you're going to disagree with. And that's fine and I'm sure you'd have a lot of compelling arguments to refute the points.
But it's not *hateful*. I don't see how a rational being could find that hateful. That's just something that shuts down discussion and mischaracterizes an opponent.
dethmaShine
May 2, 04:51 PM
unbiased as opposed to a Mac site.... yeah right!
Mac users tend to be a better target for old fashioned phishing/vishing because...well, 'nothing bad happens on a Mac..' right?
Now from google pointing 'sources', you are consistently jumping on to mac users, eh?
Good going.
Yup nothing happens to my mac except for what I do it. It's that simple. Why don't you just ask Google why they decided to abandon Windows?
Mac users tend to be a better target for old fashioned phishing/vishing because...well, 'nothing bad happens on a Mac..' right?
Now from google pointing 'sources', you are consistently jumping on to mac users, eh?
Good going.
Yup nothing happens to my mac except for what I do it. It's that simple. Why don't you just ask Google why they decided to abandon Windows?
Blue Velvet
Mar 25, 03:32 PM
By mainstream Catholic I mean someone who follows all the rules of the Catholic Church.
Then I think you misunderstand what the word 'mainstream' means. The majority of Catholics do not care about the Vatican's line on birth control, for instance.
The Public Religion Research Institute recently published a report based on a survey of Catholics across the United States. Amongst other findings:
Catholics are more supportive of legal recognitions of same-sex relationships than members of any other Christian tradition and Americans overall. Nearly three-quarters of Catholics favor either allowing gay and lesbian people to marry (43%) or allowing them to form civil unions (31%). Only 22% of Catholics say there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple�s relationship.
http://www.publicreligion.org/research/?id=509
When same-sex marriage is defined explicitly as a civil marriage, support is dramatically higher among Catholics. If marriage for gay couples is defined as a civil marriage �like you get at city hall,� Catholic support for allowing gay couples to marry increases by 28 points, from 43% to 71%. A similar pattern exists in the general population, but the Catholic increase is more pronounced.
A small minority of Catholics may support your views, but they would hardly be considered mainstream.
Then I think you misunderstand what the word 'mainstream' means. The majority of Catholics do not care about the Vatican's line on birth control, for instance.
The Public Religion Research Institute recently published a report based on a survey of Catholics across the United States. Amongst other findings:
Catholics are more supportive of legal recognitions of same-sex relationships than members of any other Christian tradition and Americans overall. Nearly three-quarters of Catholics favor either allowing gay and lesbian people to marry (43%) or allowing them to form civil unions (31%). Only 22% of Catholics say there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple�s relationship.
http://www.publicreligion.org/research/?id=509
When same-sex marriage is defined explicitly as a civil marriage, support is dramatically higher among Catholics. If marriage for gay couples is defined as a civil marriage �like you get at city hall,� Catholic support for allowing gay couples to marry increases by 28 points, from 43% to 71%. A similar pattern exists in the general population, but the Catholic increase is more pronounced.
A small minority of Catholics may support your views, but they would hardly be considered mainstream.
the vj
Apr 15, 10:03 AM
A few months ago I deleted and started to reject all the people I knew from high school in my Facebook, well, the ones that after almost 20 years came to me to add me as a friend but they were the ones that make my life a living hell and used me and took advantaged and then they turned their back on me.
You know what... get lost!
You know what... get lost!
jk8311
Sep 12, 03:24 PM
This is the same thing as having a mac mini connected to your TV...though I guess it has HDMI. This leads me to believe that they will release a Software Update for Front Row upon release of the "iTV".
Now, who wants to start speculating when this device will become the long-rumored TiVO killer? Doesn't look like there's much room back there to fit in a coax - seems like Apple missed out on a decent opportunity...
Now, who wants to start speculating when this device will become the long-rumored TiVO killer? Doesn't look like there's much room back there to fit in a coax - seems like Apple missed out on a decent opportunity...
Kingsly
Sep 20, 01:13 AM
I didn't notice any TV inputs on the prototype, so unless Apple changes the design significantly and adds major features not discussed at the event, DVR is not a possibility (as far as this device is concerned).
...I suppose there is a small chance Apple could do this, but I'm tired of getting my hopes up only to be disappointed by Apple (again).
I don't think it would make sense to make a totally great� device and then cripple it by excluding DVR functionality (IMO they already crippled it by excluding DVD player)
...I suppose there is a small chance Apple could do this, but I'm tired of getting my hopes up only to be disappointed by Apple (again).
I don't think it would make sense to make a totally great� device and then cripple it by excluding DVR functionality (IMO they already crippled it by excluding DVD player)
alexf
Aug 29, 12:17 PM
I could not care any less.
Although, I do know of one thing Apple does that hurts the environment. They make me drive 3 hours to get to the closest Apple Store and 3 hours to get back home plus sitting in all the traffic in Atlanta. However, I drive a Nissan Armada (of course it has a V8) so I'm not too worried about gas consumption. ;)
Yep, just another wasteful American. Same sad story.
Although, I do know of one thing Apple does that hurts the environment. They make me drive 3 hours to get to the closest Apple Store and 3 hours to get back home plus sitting in all the traffic in Atlanta. However, I drive a Nissan Armada (of course it has a V8) so I'm not too worried about gas consumption. ;)
Yep, just another wasteful American. Same sad story.
tigres
May 31, 06:56 AM
Please note that non of the supposed "BETTER" carriers have the iphone congesting there network with psychotic amounts of data congestion especially in the larger cities like New York this is such a ******** biased statement and study that AT&T is having excessive dropped calls. You know I hope Verizon LLC does end up getting the iphone so they too can see exactly that the iphone is the cause of said congestion and dropped calls, and if you wanna poll the typical AT&T customer that doesn't use a iphone they don't see this issue. Its the fact that Apple who has been developing phones for 3 years now....3....people companies like Motorola, Nokia, LG, and others including HTC have been at this 10 or more years they know how to make a phone. 90 percent of the AT&T supposed dropped calls are from people using the Iphone, its not a AT&T thing as much as it is that apple has yet to perfect making phones like Motorola and Nokia who have been in the business since the beginning of cellphone technology have. So before you go spouting off that AT&T is a horrible provider maybe you should do some research into what type of handset most of these people are using when they have these supposed "EXCESSIVE" dropped calls and I bet most of them will answer Iphone.
Welcome to the boards again AT&T.
Keep blaming everyone except the provider.
Welcome to the boards again AT&T.
Keep blaming everyone except the provider.
BlizzardBomb
Jul 14, 02:12 PM
2003: "In 12 months, we'll be at 3GHz".
Mid 2006: "I want to talk about 2.66GHz" although 4 cores running at 2.66GHz (Yum! :D ).
Mid 2006: "I want to talk about 2.66GHz" although 4 cores running at 2.66GHz (Yum! :D ).
skunk
Mar 16, 02:09 PM
The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. Is completely irresponsible the opposite of short-sighted?
ender land
Apr 23, 09:29 PM
Wow. I see it completely the other way. The religious people look at the atheists as lost souls, sinners, who need to be saved. They want their beliefs to be the basis for our laws. They need to have god thrown in our faces, on our money, in our pledges, in our courtrooms, etc. etc. And this is in the land of the free where separation of church and state is supposed to be one our most basic rights!
Don't believe me, check any poll about who people in the United States trust or who they would vote for. Atheists are always at the bottom of both lists!
How many people became theistic because of atheism? Or have their religious views strengthened as a result of atheism?
How many people became atheist because of religion? Or have their atheistic views strengthened as a result of religion?
This was my point in that statement.
And of course atheists will be less trusted. Atheism rejects non-societal Morals (unless you want to pull the "absolute morals exist and god(s) do not" version of atheism). Morality is completely defined by society at that point or at a more direct sense, by us.
Someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of Morals to abide by. Granted, a lot - if not most - of politicians are the "I'm a once a month Christian so people will vote for me" type but some (like GWB for better or worse) appear to take their faith with them to the office. This is a far more reliable set of beliefs, whether or not you agree with them, than someone who has arbitrary or personally decided morals.
Don't believe me, check any poll about who people in the United States trust or who they would vote for. Atheists are always at the bottom of both lists!
How many people became theistic because of atheism? Or have their religious views strengthened as a result of atheism?
How many people became atheist because of religion? Or have their atheistic views strengthened as a result of religion?
This was my point in that statement.
And of course atheists will be less trusted. Atheism rejects non-societal Morals (unless you want to pull the "absolute morals exist and god(s) do not" version of atheism). Morality is completely defined by society at that point or at a more direct sense, by us.
Someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of Morals to abide by. Granted, a lot - if not most - of politicians are the "I'm a once a month Christian so people will vote for me" type but some (like GWB for better or worse) appear to take their faith with them to the office. This is a far more reliable set of beliefs, whether or not you agree with them, than someone who has arbitrary or personally decided morals.
0 comments:
Post a Comment