eawmp1
Apr 22, 08:21 PM
There are arguments and counter-arguments to both camps, which is why I choose to be agnostos. In the face of a dearth of evidence it's more rational to withhold judgment than leap to an extreme position.
I would argue not choosing to believe in a divine being is more rational than hedging your bets.
I would argue not choosing to believe in a divine being is more rational than hedging your bets.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 10:37 AM
My kids would love that, too. Only problem would be trying to get my iPhone or iPad away from them! ;)
And would you pay $40 for it? I'm guessing you would.
Nintendo has really valuable IP that it would be wonderful to see on the iOS platform.
And would you pay $40 for it? I'm guessing you would.
Nintendo has really valuable IP that it would be wonderful to see on the iOS platform.
citizenzen
Apr 22, 09:29 PM
The atheists I've spoken to, here in the UK and various European countries, tend to not back up their atheism with reasons of any sort.
Once again, it's the believers who haven't backed up their beliefs with reasoning or proof.
Atheists simply shake their heads and think, "You folks are really gullible, aren't you?"
If you're going to assert that something exists, the burden of proof rests on you, not those still waiting for proof, that hasn't surfaced, after more than 2,000 years.
Once again, it's the believers who haven't backed up their beliefs with reasoning or proof.
Atheists simply shake their heads and think, "You folks are really gullible, aren't you?"
If you're going to assert that something exists, the burden of proof rests on you, not those still waiting for proof, that hasn't surfaced, after more than 2,000 years.
mkrishnan
Sep 12, 03:19 PM
So it seems from the coverage that the device has no optical drive, and no internal mass storage? Is that correct? And also that it is not itself a DVR? Don't get me wrong -- I'm reserving judgment. I just want to understand at this point. It sounds as if the basic purpose of the device is to draw high quality AV off a computer and onto a home entertainment system, sort of as the Roku SoundBridge did for the iPod's audio, but in a very Apple sort of way? In other words, it follows the computer-centric sort of model where a desktop or notebook Mac on the network is the "server"?
DiamondMac
Mar 18, 01:35 PM
No in the TOS it states there is a limit to unlimited (5gb), deceptive.
As several others have said, SHOW us where it says that. Please
As several others have said, SHOW us where it says that. Please
Porchland
Sep 20, 09:46 AM
Oh please, yes. For me, iTV will only truly be the final piece of the jigsaw if I can also watch my recorded (and possibly live) EyeTV content through it.
A hook-up between Apple and Elgato sounds the most natural thing. Elgato should continue to make hardware for all the various TV standards (terrestrial / cable / sat / digital / etc etc), but perhaps use some Apple desigers to make their boxes a bit more "Apple-looking". Then, Apple can take the EyeTV 2.x software and integrate it with iTunes.
To those that say that Apple won't allow this because it would hit their own TV show revenues from the iTunes store... I disagree. They'll have to give in sooner or later, because EyeTV isn't going to go away. Would iTunes/iPod have been such a success if they'd have made us purchase all our music from iTunes, even the stuff we alread had on CD?
I'm not going to pay �3 (or whatever) for an Episode of Lost if I could have recorded on EyeTV last night... especially when C4 repeat each episode about 6 times per week anyway.
Regds
SL
A lot of these questions come down to whether Apple is going to market iTV as a satellite/cable killer.
Scenario A: iTV is a way to watch movies and shows in your iTunes library and (for $1.99) watch an episode of a show you forgot to DVR or that you just really like and want to own.
Scenario B: Apple morphs its season pass feature for TV shows into a subscription service that is priced competitive to cable. Movies are available in HD for $3.99 for 24 hours.
Scenario A doesn't really give me anything I don't already have, and I'm not going to pay $299 for the privilege of buying movies for $10 that I can PPV for $4. But Scenario B gives me a way to drop my cable package altogether; it's similar to the way mobile phones allowed people to drop local phone service.
A hook-up between Apple and Elgato sounds the most natural thing. Elgato should continue to make hardware for all the various TV standards (terrestrial / cable / sat / digital / etc etc), but perhaps use some Apple desigers to make their boxes a bit more "Apple-looking". Then, Apple can take the EyeTV 2.x software and integrate it with iTunes.
To those that say that Apple won't allow this because it would hit their own TV show revenues from the iTunes store... I disagree. They'll have to give in sooner or later, because EyeTV isn't going to go away. Would iTunes/iPod have been such a success if they'd have made us purchase all our music from iTunes, even the stuff we alread had on CD?
I'm not going to pay �3 (or whatever) for an Episode of Lost if I could have recorded on EyeTV last night... especially when C4 repeat each episode about 6 times per week anyway.
Regds
SL
A lot of these questions come down to whether Apple is going to market iTV as a satellite/cable killer.
Scenario A: iTV is a way to watch movies and shows in your iTunes library and (for $1.99) watch an episode of a show you forgot to DVR or that you just really like and want to own.
Scenario B: Apple morphs its season pass feature for TV shows into a subscription service that is priced competitive to cable. Movies are available in HD for $3.99 for 24 hours.
Scenario A doesn't really give me anything I don't already have, and I'm not going to pay $299 for the privilege of buying movies for $10 that I can PPV for $4. But Scenario B gives me a way to drop my cable package altogether; it's similar to the way mobile phones allowed people to drop local phone service.
ftrtrk
Sep 12, 04:47 PM
why the h can't they release it yet? Jobs was using it perfectly on stage, it looks great, this is confusing.
sisyphus
Sep 20, 11:01 PM
First things first, I presume that the HD is there to put a great deal of stuff easily in reach. When SJ did the demo, the unit had all the album art/DVD covers on there as well as a synopsis etc... That could all be easily stored on the "iTV" reducing the need to access it all the time.
Obviously it will also act as a temporary cache for downloaded movies/online trailers. I suspect the biggest use of the HD will be the ability to buy/rent movies directly from the unit.
A bit of a "far out" idea is maybe to use the unit as a pseudo PVR in the future. If you were to say, pay $5 to watch the "insert big sporting event final here" online. You could pause it and use the HD to store data while you had to go use the facilities because you really shouldn't have finished off that Super Big Gulp before the game even started.
An even better use would be a rental download that would stay on the iTV for a week prior to being "blipped".
Apple doesn't want a PVR they want better than PVR. Instant demand to anything! However Apple isn't big enough for that. Instead all of the media companies will do it for them. Why? Greed, pure and simple greed. The thought of making money for no additional work is too lucrative for them. Why bother punchine out DVDs when you can send the master to Apple. Let them encode it and handle all the distribution problems. Look as Disney. They made $1,000,000 in one week for doing NOTHING. Why do you thing WalMart is scared (when was the last time you heard that?) Walmart succeeds because they force the best price from manufacturers. Someone has figured out the ultimate price reduction on the product - no physical media period! There is no way to undercut that.
Studios aren't dumb either. This is actually a way for them to increase profits! As the price of purchase goes down, more people will buy. However they were able to reduce the price without reducing profits! (This is my assumption that the profit on each download is = to the DVD profit). Now guess what. The studio can actually increase their profits. Lets say for the real movie buffs they could release a $2 "Extras" download that would contain most the of stuff on DVDs that most people never actually watch. The hard core people would jump on it. The average people would just be happy with their basic movie.
The next step is HD. Who is really going to care about HD-DVD vs. Blue-Ray if you could just download it in HD and store it on your umm... HD. :D Apple's near term goal is to replace your DVD player. However the longer term goal is to make the Mac your entire content delivery system.
That being said in the near term the iTV is perfect for me IF Apple allows movie rentals. I think the reason that they didn't debut the movie rentals is the lack of a shipping iTV. I can just hear SJ at MWSF saying that the "most demanded feature for the movie downloads and iTV is rentals." Unfortunately living in Canada means I'll be waiting until it they are playing ice hockey in hell for this service to make it north.
At home we have several TVs. If each TV were to (eventually) have an iTV it would mean access to all my media anywhere in the house. Should somebody like Elgato or TiVo be really smart and find an extremely simple way of meshing their products with the iTV I could access all of my data from anywhere in the house anytime. I'm just waiting to see where all of the pieces will be by January. I suspect they'll be far more cohesive than most people here expect.
Obviously it will also act as a temporary cache for downloaded movies/online trailers. I suspect the biggest use of the HD will be the ability to buy/rent movies directly from the unit.
A bit of a "far out" idea is maybe to use the unit as a pseudo PVR in the future. If you were to say, pay $5 to watch the "insert big sporting event final here" online. You could pause it and use the HD to store data while you had to go use the facilities because you really shouldn't have finished off that Super Big Gulp before the game even started.
An even better use would be a rental download that would stay on the iTV for a week prior to being "blipped".
Apple doesn't want a PVR they want better than PVR. Instant demand to anything! However Apple isn't big enough for that. Instead all of the media companies will do it for them. Why? Greed, pure and simple greed. The thought of making money for no additional work is too lucrative for them. Why bother punchine out DVDs when you can send the master to Apple. Let them encode it and handle all the distribution problems. Look as Disney. They made $1,000,000 in one week for doing NOTHING. Why do you thing WalMart is scared (when was the last time you heard that?) Walmart succeeds because they force the best price from manufacturers. Someone has figured out the ultimate price reduction on the product - no physical media period! There is no way to undercut that.
Studios aren't dumb either. This is actually a way for them to increase profits! As the price of purchase goes down, more people will buy. However they were able to reduce the price without reducing profits! (This is my assumption that the profit on each download is = to the DVD profit). Now guess what. The studio can actually increase their profits. Lets say for the real movie buffs they could release a $2 "Extras" download that would contain most the of stuff on DVDs that most people never actually watch. The hard core people would jump on it. The average people would just be happy with their basic movie.
The next step is HD. Who is really going to care about HD-DVD vs. Blue-Ray if you could just download it in HD and store it on your umm... HD. :D Apple's near term goal is to replace your DVD player. However the longer term goal is to make the Mac your entire content delivery system.
That being said in the near term the iTV is perfect for me IF Apple allows movie rentals. I think the reason that they didn't debut the movie rentals is the lack of a shipping iTV. I can just hear SJ at MWSF saying that the "most demanded feature for the movie downloads and iTV is rentals." Unfortunately living in Canada means I'll be waiting until it they are playing ice hockey in hell for this service to make it north.
At home we have several TVs. If each TV were to (eventually) have an iTV it would mean access to all my media anywhere in the house. Should somebody like Elgato or TiVo be really smart and find an extremely simple way of meshing their products with the iTV I could access all of my data from anywhere in the house anytime. I'm just waiting to see where all of the pieces will be by January. I suspect they'll be far more cohesive than most people here expect.
AppliedVisual
Oct 6, 04:59 PM
OK, it seems like Woodcrest was officially unveiled by Intel on July 27 and the new Mac Pros were available for purchase (same day they were announced) on August 7.
So if it goes like that, we could see these things as early as late November, right? Just doing some wishful thinking! :)
Ugh, it's gonna be hard waiting until December or January. I just hope the price won't be so much higher than what we see now.
It's difficult to say. Intel has been making engineering samples of Cloverton available to companies like Apple and Dell and motherboard makers for a while now. From the time Intel formally announces availability to the time we can buy a Cloverton Mac Pro should be a matter of days, maybe a week or two. Now, if there are problems with cooling or voltage or BIOS/ROM incompatibilities/bugs to work out, then it could be longer. I'm pretty confident that it won't be a delay anywhere near as long as the Merom Macbook[Pro] delay.
2.66GHz (or 3GHz? maybe?) Cloverton Mac Pro for me... :D Hopefully they have a better graphics card offering than the current choices too.
So if it goes like that, we could see these things as early as late November, right? Just doing some wishful thinking! :)
Ugh, it's gonna be hard waiting until December or January. I just hope the price won't be so much higher than what we see now.
It's difficult to say. Intel has been making engineering samples of Cloverton available to companies like Apple and Dell and motherboard makers for a while now. From the time Intel formally announces availability to the time we can buy a Cloverton Mac Pro should be a matter of days, maybe a week or two. Now, if there are problems with cooling or voltage or BIOS/ROM incompatibilities/bugs to work out, then it could be longer. I'm pretty confident that it won't be a delay anywhere near as long as the Merom Macbook[Pro] delay.
2.66GHz (or 3GHz? maybe?) Cloverton Mac Pro for me... :D Hopefully they have a better graphics card offering than the current choices too.
M-5
Apr 15, 12:31 PM
I think one thing that would help the Gay community would be instead of focusing on how different they are focus on how much like everyone else they are. I live in one of the largest gay communities outside of San Fransisco, and as a straight male have nothing but the utmost respect and love for the Gay community. Its time though that they stepped up and said hey We are just like all of you!
No, I don't agree with this. The GLBT shouldn't have to try to live up to the heterosexual norms of society in order to be accepted. This is really similar to when heterosexuals say "I'm alright with gay people as long as I don't see them doing gay things." Its like saying that being gay is okay as long as a person's identity is hidden from the rest of society. No, it should be accepted, and the GLBT shouldn't have to live out the heteronormative image to be treated with the resepect and dignity that human beings deserve.
I love the message that it's alright to be who you are, and that you don't have to pretend you're straight to get some damn respect. I mean, I'm taking a university course focusing on Discriminaton in the Marketplace, and we've discussed many issues such as systemic racism primarily focusing on African Americans, or weight and ethnic discrimination. But this past week we were discussing how prevalent discrimination is against the GLBT, and there were some advertisements shown such as the Snickers Superbowl where two men eat the same snickers bar and end up having their lips meet in the middle. The ad ends with the men feeling disgusted and having to express their masculinity by ripping off their chest hair. I have several issues with this ad, such as the fact that homosexuality is still being displayed as something disgraceful and shameful that someone can't be associated with. Another is that the message is relayed that Gay men can't be masculine.
The second ad we saw was a McDonalds commercial where a boy is conversing on the phone with his boyfriend while looking at a class photo of both of them. When the boys father comes back with his McDonalds meals, the boy has to end up call and hear his dad ask him about "the ladies." The ad ends with some message such as "Come as you are." After the ad there were a bunch of giggles coming from guys laughing at the gay nature of the ad. It sickened me because of the fact that it was a class focusing on discrimination and the apparent homophobia was so prevalent amongst my peers. I also had issues with the ad, which actually left me feeling worse about myself at the end of it. First of all, the boy had to secretly speak to his partner and hang up the call before his father returned. Then he had to listen to his father ask him about his relationship with women while the boy has to dismiss his real identity from his father.
Ugh, and I also hate when people say "Why does the GLBT always say that we should be accepting towards them and their beliefs when on the other hand they're against people and religions who are against them; thats so hypocritical." I hate this statement because what the GLBT ask for and believe in is equality and acceptance and don't infringe on the rights of heterosexuals. While the belief that certain heterosexuals take on infringes on the rights of homosexuals and want unacceptance.
And being gay isn't some stupid hipster fad that some of you refer to it as.
No, I don't agree with this. The GLBT shouldn't have to try to live up to the heterosexual norms of society in order to be accepted. This is really similar to when heterosexuals say "I'm alright with gay people as long as I don't see them doing gay things." Its like saying that being gay is okay as long as a person's identity is hidden from the rest of society. No, it should be accepted, and the GLBT shouldn't have to live out the heteronormative image to be treated with the resepect and dignity that human beings deserve.
I love the message that it's alright to be who you are, and that you don't have to pretend you're straight to get some damn respect. I mean, I'm taking a university course focusing on Discriminaton in the Marketplace, and we've discussed many issues such as systemic racism primarily focusing on African Americans, or weight and ethnic discrimination. But this past week we were discussing how prevalent discrimination is against the GLBT, and there were some advertisements shown such as the Snickers Superbowl where two men eat the same snickers bar and end up having their lips meet in the middle. The ad ends with the men feeling disgusted and having to express their masculinity by ripping off their chest hair. I have several issues with this ad, such as the fact that homosexuality is still being displayed as something disgraceful and shameful that someone can't be associated with. Another is that the message is relayed that Gay men can't be masculine.
The second ad we saw was a McDonalds commercial where a boy is conversing on the phone with his boyfriend while looking at a class photo of both of them. When the boys father comes back with his McDonalds meals, the boy has to end up call and hear his dad ask him about "the ladies." The ad ends with some message such as "Come as you are." After the ad there were a bunch of giggles coming from guys laughing at the gay nature of the ad. It sickened me because of the fact that it was a class focusing on discrimination and the apparent homophobia was so prevalent amongst my peers. I also had issues with the ad, which actually left me feeling worse about myself at the end of it. First of all, the boy had to secretly speak to his partner and hang up the call before his father returned. Then he had to listen to his father ask him about his relationship with women while the boy has to dismiss his real identity from his father.
Ugh, and I also hate when people say "Why does the GLBT always say that we should be accepting towards them and their beliefs when on the other hand they're against people and religions who are against them; thats so hypocritical." I hate this statement because what the GLBT ask for and believe in is equality and acceptance and don't infringe on the rights of heterosexuals. While the belief that certain heterosexuals take on infringes on the rights of homosexuals and want unacceptance.
And being gay isn't some stupid hipster fad that some of you refer to it as.
darkplanets
Mar 12, 02:14 PM
While I am not a nuclear engineer, I do have a fair amount of knowledge in the area, so with that in mind I can personally say that this will NOT become another Chernobyl situation. Again though as a disclaimer, this is not my career.
With that said, the BWR should be fine. What we saw earlier was the steam blowing apart the structure-- this just means that they didn't do their job in relieving the pressure. The core should be intact, and the reports state that the housing is still in place. When the control rods are inserted into the core, the rods will not melt down, however heat WILL still be produced. In this case, steam. Steam voids moderate fewer neutrons, causing the power level inside the reactor to lower. Furthermore, there should be safety overpressure valves... not sure why these didn't work; they may not be there due to the age of the plant.
To quote wikipedia about BWR safety:
Because of this effect in BWRs, operating components and safety systems are designed to ensure that no credible scenario can cause a pressure and power increase that exceeds the systems' capability to quickly shutdown the reactor before damage to the fuel or to components containing the reactor coolant can occur. In the limiting case of an ATWS (Anticipated Transient Without Scram) derangement, high neutron power levels (~ 200%) can occur for less than a second, after which actuation of SRVs will cause the pressure to rapidly drop off. Neutronic power will fall to far below nominal power (the range of 30% with the cessation of circulation, and thus, void clearance) even before ARI or SLCS actuation occurs. Thermal power will be barely affected.
In the event of a contingency that disables all of the safety systems, each reactor is surrounded by a containment building consisting of 1.2–2.4 m (4–8 ft) of steel-reinforced, pre-stressed concrete designed to seal off the reactor from the environment.
Again; BWR =/= graphite moderated reactor. Why does no one get this?! Everyone will be fine.
Two more bones of contention (which will give you my perspective):
-I personally believe the linear no threshold model is crap, even with the adjustment factor
-I also personally advocate the use of thorium... there's many benefits, melt-down control being one of them (because of MSR)... also although there's still fabrication issues, thorium can be used in existing LWRs. There is also proposed designs where the thorium has to actively be fed into the core, providing a great shutoff mechanism. The only con to this is the fact that thorium is more radioactive than uranium, so it's potentially more dangerous. I think the pros outweigh the cons.
Do you have a link for this? I'd like to read about it. I would think a system setup to automatically scram when power is lost would be the ideal.
Sure! It's really rather cool. (No pun intended)
For starters here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_Water_Reactor_Safety_Systems) is the current safety systems that are supposed to be in all BWR, however since this one is from the 80's, it's really hit or miss-- I can't answer that.
New reactor designs have these systems in place-- for example the Westinghouse AP 1000's. (here (http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_safety_psrs.html))
A general link about passive safety here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety).
Basically though, the idea is that human intervention, mechanical or otherwise, is always the weak point in nuclear safety. Instead of relying upon mechanical or man-controlled means, these safety measures employ the laws of physics and thermodynamics, which I hope are always working :D. Many of these systems rely on heat sensitive plugs connected to tanks to flood the chamber or coolant systems via gravity.
With that said, the BWR should be fine. What we saw earlier was the steam blowing apart the structure-- this just means that they didn't do their job in relieving the pressure. The core should be intact, and the reports state that the housing is still in place. When the control rods are inserted into the core, the rods will not melt down, however heat WILL still be produced. In this case, steam. Steam voids moderate fewer neutrons, causing the power level inside the reactor to lower. Furthermore, there should be safety overpressure valves... not sure why these didn't work; they may not be there due to the age of the plant.
To quote wikipedia about BWR safety:
Because of this effect in BWRs, operating components and safety systems are designed to ensure that no credible scenario can cause a pressure and power increase that exceeds the systems' capability to quickly shutdown the reactor before damage to the fuel or to components containing the reactor coolant can occur. In the limiting case of an ATWS (Anticipated Transient Without Scram) derangement, high neutron power levels (~ 200%) can occur for less than a second, after which actuation of SRVs will cause the pressure to rapidly drop off. Neutronic power will fall to far below nominal power (the range of 30% with the cessation of circulation, and thus, void clearance) even before ARI or SLCS actuation occurs. Thermal power will be barely affected.
In the event of a contingency that disables all of the safety systems, each reactor is surrounded by a containment building consisting of 1.2–2.4 m (4–8 ft) of steel-reinforced, pre-stressed concrete designed to seal off the reactor from the environment.
Again; BWR =/= graphite moderated reactor. Why does no one get this?! Everyone will be fine.
Two more bones of contention (which will give you my perspective):
-I personally believe the linear no threshold model is crap, even with the adjustment factor
-I also personally advocate the use of thorium... there's many benefits, melt-down control being one of them (because of MSR)... also although there's still fabrication issues, thorium can be used in existing LWRs. There is also proposed designs where the thorium has to actively be fed into the core, providing a great shutoff mechanism. The only con to this is the fact that thorium is more radioactive than uranium, so it's potentially more dangerous. I think the pros outweigh the cons.
Do you have a link for this? I'd like to read about it. I would think a system setup to automatically scram when power is lost would be the ideal.
Sure! It's really rather cool. (No pun intended)
For starters here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_Water_Reactor_Safety_Systems) is the current safety systems that are supposed to be in all BWR, however since this one is from the 80's, it's really hit or miss-- I can't answer that.
New reactor designs have these systems in place-- for example the Westinghouse AP 1000's. (here (http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_safety_psrs.html))
A general link about passive safety here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety).
Basically though, the idea is that human intervention, mechanical or otherwise, is always the weak point in nuclear safety. Instead of relying upon mechanical or man-controlled means, these safety measures employ the laws of physics and thermodynamics, which I hope are always working :D. Many of these systems rely on heat sensitive plugs connected to tanks to flood the chamber or coolant systems via gravity.
Multimedia
Oct 30, 09:26 PM
This doesn't have anything to do with the new machines, but does anybody have in inkling of how to get extra drive sleds for a MacPro?
Apple sales has been more than useless when I ask them about it.
You would think a 3rd Party would come with some knockoff. I would buy 4 right off the bat. Sheesh, it's just metalwork. Somebody ought to make one.I don't, but that's an excellent question. I could see wanting those myself. Have you asked third parties like WiebeTech (http://www.wiebetech.com/home.php) about it yet?
Apple sales has been more than useless when I ask them about it.
You would think a 3rd Party would come with some knockoff. I would buy 4 right off the bat. Sheesh, it's just metalwork. Somebody ought to make one.I don't, but that's an excellent question. I could see wanting those myself. Have you asked third parties like WiebeTech (http://www.wiebetech.com/home.php) about it yet?
scottlinux
Oct 25, 11:11 PM
I think price will be the key. These are pricey chips. Apple will have to work their magic.
I wonder how many current Mac Pro owners will just buy the new chips off pricewatch.com and pop them in.
I wonder how many current Mac Pro owners will just buy the new chips off pricewatch.com and pop them in.
sinsin07
Apr 9, 09:11 AM
Nope didn't escape me, I just don't agree with you or think it's worth discuss products that don't exist yet and comparing them to ones that do. That's not a "it's not fair" issue, that's a "stop suggesting a product you can't buy is better than one you can". You've not used one for any period of time that is meaningful, stop listing it as a better gaming experience.
Enduring Rockies games
holi colors wallpaper,
P.S. Rockies fans in Iowa
Rockies iPad wallpaper,
Colorado Rockies Blackberry
javajedi
Oct 9, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by TheFink
One point you are missing is that I can upgrade my PC 5 times over and still have the cost be lower than buying a new Mac. So a mac can run modern apps 5 years later. For the same price, I can get a PC, drop a new HD, video card, and CPU in a few years later and then end up with a leading edge PC, and not a bleading edge mac. My B&W G3 isn't even upgradable to the speeds of the current iMacs. With a PC a new mobo and CPU will get me into whatever is the current CPU class....
Very ture. For better or wose, that is what happens when you get locked into a single vendor that sells proprietary hardware *or* software.... just look at Sun :)
One point you are missing is that I can upgrade my PC 5 times over and still have the cost be lower than buying a new Mac. So a mac can run modern apps 5 years later. For the same price, I can get a PC, drop a new HD, video card, and CPU in a few years later and then end up with a leading edge PC, and not a bleading edge mac. My B&W G3 isn't even upgradable to the speeds of the current iMacs. With a PC a new mobo and CPU will get me into whatever is the current CPU class....
Very ture. For better or wose, that is what happens when you get locked into a single vendor that sells proprietary hardware *or* software.... just look at Sun :)
tempusfugit
Dec 3, 11:06 PM
Add me to the unhappy list. Granted me I'm in California, a place where AT&T data services are notorious for not working that well. I'm currently on Sprint and quite happy. Shame the iPhone is only limited to one network in the US though.
Ok we'll add you to the list of people who, despite not having AT&T, are displeased with it.
Ok we'll add you to the list of people who, despite not having AT&T, are displeased with it.
levitynyc
Apr 8, 10:26 PM
Ummm.... everyone that's into gaming HATES Activision.
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).
benixau
Oct 12, 10:41 AM
for crying out load, who cares if a pc can do its sums better than a mac. My brother does maths better than me but i kick him in english.
In other words if i am more productive on my mac then it doesnt matter that it might be a little 'slower' it is a faster machine because i can work faster. End of story. New Thread.
In other words if i am more productive on my mac then it doesnt matter that it might be a little 'slower' it is a faster machine because i can work faster. End of story. New Thread.
Eduardo1971
Apr 28, 07:27 AM
Surprise. The major enterprise players take the top three spots.
Agree. Too bad the iMac never took off in the enterprise sector. I remember when I was going to the university in the 90's I saw plenty of macs all around campus. Now the times I've gone all I see are Dell's, and HP's.
Agree. Too bad the iMac never took off in the enterprise sector. I remember when I was going to the university in the 90's I saw plenty of macs all around campus. Now the times I've gone all I see are Dell's, and HP's.
arkitect
Apr 15, 10:46 AM
Exactly! I agree with you. I am a womanizer and I hate it when a church tells me I can't sleep with a different woman every night! I do plan on switching to polygamy and I hope the government gives me all the rights associated with my switch! Do you think Apple's womanizing employees will put out a video that it will be easier for me?
I have read this a few times now and I still do not get your point.
Being gay = being promiscuous?
Or is it just a very poor attempt at sarcasm?
Bad, bad taste�
I have read this a few times now and I still do not get your point.
Being gay = being promiscuous?
Or is it just a very poor attempt at sarcasm?
Bad, bad taste�
RedReplicant
Apr 5, 05:30 PM
One off the top of my head is that everything costs money application wise, there is very little freeware.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 16, 01:48 PM
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable energy reserves are accurate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable energy reserves are accurate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
fpnc
Mar 18, 06:36 PM
All this is just a more convenient way to get the same result as running your purchased music through Hymn or JHymn. It's not quite the same as burning and ripping a CD though, since that is lossy.
It's not really the same, because Apple will know (most likely) who has use this software to violate the TOS. It's pretty much like I said earlier:
It's almost like you were planning of going online to one of the illegal music sharing sites, documenting your activities, and then sending that information directly to the RIAA with your name and address with a note asking them to prosecute.
It's not really the same, because Apple will know (most likely) who has use this software to violate the TOS. It's pretty much like I said earlier:
It's almost like you were planning of going online to one of the illegal music sharing sites, documenting your activities, and then sending that information directly to the RIAA with your name and address with a note asking them to prosecute.