CaoCao
Mar 25, 09:59 AM
Subtract the individuals affiliated with gangs and the mentally unstable and we're staring at a long list of homosexuals murdered by "mainstream" individuals, many of whom attended church on a regular basis and were in fact catholic. That their religious affiliations are not immediately telegraphed is not evidence of absence, but rather of the fact that 76% of the population self-identifies as Christian.
Aren't we having a thread about religion dying?
Don't forget to subtract the victims who we aren't sure about them being killed because they were homosexual.
So, how many can you prove were Catholic, mentally stable and not in gangs?
People can BELIEVE whatever they want.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
"so frequently" ORLY? Prove it. To prove that the Catholic Church restricts rights you have to prove that the rights existed before.
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
To stretch my own analogy, it also ignores that the men who put on white hoods and terrorized black people were not "mainstream" white people either, but they were nevertheless acting on the attitudes held by "mainstream" white people. They were radical, but saw themselves as the ones with the strength of will to enforce the true will of the "mainstream." It's all very well to believe that the darkies should keep their place, but somebody's got to do the work of keeping them there when they step out of line.
However, I will return to what I touched on before: the Catholic Church (and Christian churches generally in the United States) currently have no need for terrorist thugs. They have great political influence and have convinced a significant plurality (seemingly no longer a majority, I am gratified to point out) that they are entitled to subjugate others bloodlessly and anonymously through the democratic process.
At least this is so until the courts clearly state once and for all that this is incompatible with our law and our society. Incidentally, that's also when the thugs will really come out, and you watch how many of them claim to be doing the Lord's work.
The Klan was basically an organization with the express purpose of keeping Negroes in line, can you prove an equivalent organization in the Catholic Church?
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
If we constantly expand the topic, none of what was previously said is relevant.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
You forgot the fact that many "Christians" in the US are fundamentalist nuts
Aren't we having a thread about religion dying?
Don't forget to subtract the victims who we aren't sure about them being killed because they were homosexual.
So, how many can you prove were Catholic, mentally stable and not in gangs?
People can BELIEVE whatever they want.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
"so frequently" ORLY? Prove it. To prove that the Catholic Church restricts rights you have to prove that the rights existed before.
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
To stretch my own analogy, it also ignores that the men who put on white hoods and terrorized black people were not "mainstream" white people either, but they were nevertheless acting on the attitudes held by "mainstream" white people. They were radical, but saw themselves as the ones with the strength of will to enforce the true will of the "mainstream." It's all very well to believe that the darkies should keep their place, but somebody's got to do the work of keeping them there when they step out of line.
However, I will return to what I touched on before: the Catholic Church (and Christian churches generally in the United States) currently have no need for terrorist thugs. They have great political influence and have convinced a significant plurality (seemingly no longer a majority, I am gratified to point out) that they are entitled to subjugate others bloodlessly and anonymously through the democratic process.
At least this is so until the courts clearly state once and for all that this is incompatible with our law and our society. Incidentally, that's also when the thugs will really come out, and you watch how many of them claim to be doing the Lord's work.
The Klan was basically an organization with the express purpose of keeping Negroes in line, can you prove an equivalent organization in the Catholic Church?
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
If we constantly expand the topic, none of what was previously said is relevant.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
You forgot the fact that many "Christians" in the US are fundamentalist nuts
bryanc
Aug 29, 12:28 PM
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
Hear, hear! What's up with all of you Apple Boosters? I think my Macs are great, and OS X is clearly the best OS on the planet today, but this report is very disappointing.
Rather than turning a blind eye to the irresponsible policies at Apple, and saying the Greenpeace is just anti-technology (they're big supporters of many innovative energy technologies, BTW), why not do what you can, as an Apple customer, to change the way Apple does business.
I've submitted feedback to Apple in the past about their wasteful packaging, and have been pleasantly surprised not only by their considerate replies, but the fact that they've changed their packaging to be less wasteful. Apple listens to their customers. If they know we care about the environment, they'll change their practices to be more sustainable.
I would like to have seen Apple respond to this as a challenge, by saying that they appreciate the constructive criticism and look forward to implementing changes in their practises and achieving top marks in the next Greenpeace analysis. If enough Apple customers make it clear that this should be a priority, it will become one.
Cheers
Hear, hear! What's up with all of you Apple Boosters? I think my Macs are great, and OS X is clearly the best OS on the planet today, but this report is very disappointing.
Rather than turning a blind eye to the irresponsible policies at Apple, and saying the Greenpeace is just anti-technology (they're big supporters of many innovative energy technologies, BTW), why not do what you can, as an Apple customer, to change the way Apple does business.
I've submitted feedback to Apple in the past about their wasteful packaging, and have been pleasantly surprised not only by their considerate replies, but the fact that they've changed their packaging to be less wasteful. Apple listens to their customers. If they know we care about the environment, they'll change their practices to be more sustainable.
I would like to have seen Apple respond to this as a challenge, by saying that they appreciate the constructive criticism and look forward to implementing changes in their practises and achieving top marks in the next Greenpeace analysis. If enough Apple customers make it clear that this should be a priority, it will become one.
Cheers
darbus69
Apr 20, 06:57 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
btw, nvm, won't lower myself to ur level...
btw, nvm, won't lower myself to ur level...
Surely
Apr 15, 10:58 AM
Ha ha! I love when people rationalize all their views through scientific/observable fact...and then use the same subjectivity and bias (they ridicule) to judge opinions they disagree with. Sorry friend, you can no more prove that scripture invalid than MacVault can prove it valid. :rolleyes:
I'm sorry, but any writing that advocates death to someone is wrong.
If you want to preach love, kindness, and being good to thy neighbor, I'm all for that.
Ha ha!:rolleyes:
I'm sorry, but any writing that advocates death to someone is wrong.
If you want to preach love, kindness, and being good to thy neighbor, I'm all for that.
Ha ha!:rolleyes:
balamw
Apr 11, 11:05 AM
Would it be considered switching if I bought the mini? I"ll still have a few laptops which I'll be using with XP, but then again; I can just VNC to the OSX mac mini
Many of us maintain multiple machines or run Windows as well as OS X.
I think you can define a switcher as someone who, given the choice of performing a task either on one platform or the other that either could do, will more often than not pick the Mac using OS X.
B
Many of us maintain multiple machines or run Windows as well as OS X.
I think you can define a switcher as someone who, given the choice of performing a task either on one platform or the other that either could do, will more often than not pick the Mac using OS X.
B
citizenzen
Mar 14, 03:25 PM
It would require a multi-tiered approach.
I've been away for a few days and have missed this discussion.
The solution does indeed need to be multi-tiered and intelligently applied. I've heard that the Japanese Nuclear plants were built to survive a strong earthquake or a tsunami, but not both. Well what often occurs when you get a strong earthquake offshore? That's right, a tsunami! Brilliant planning!
As for solar, it should be mandatory on new construction in areas such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas. It won't solve our energy needs but it will lessen them. Use the appropriate alternative technology where it will do the most good. Don't try to ship solar generated electricity across the country, just try to take advantage of it in localities that typically experience a number of sunny days.
I've been away for a few days and have missed this discussion.
The solution does indeed need to be multi-tiered and intelligently applied. I've heard that the Japanese Nuclear plants were built to survive a strong earthquake or a tsunami, but not both. Well what often occurs when you get a strong earthquake offshore? That's right, a tsunami! Brilliant planning!
As for solar, it should be mandatory on new construction in areas such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas. It won't solve our energy needs but it will lessen them. Use the appropriate alternative technology where it will do the most good. Don't try to ship solar generated electricity across the country, just try to take advantage of it in localities that typically experience a number of sunny days.
Machead III
Sep 20, 06:05 AM
<Everyone Else>ITV is the name of the UK's biggest terrestrial commercial TV network</Everyone Else>
It's also far and away the worst. It's the televisual equivalent of drilling a hole in your skull and pouring pure ethanol into your brain.
It's also far and away the worst. It's the televisual equivalent of drilling a hole in your skull and pouring pure ethanol into your brain.
Eraserhead
Mar 27, 05:25 PM
Many liberals seem to love ambiguity. Ambiguity confuses me thoroughly.
But that is how the world really is I'm afraid.
But that is how the world really is I'm afraid.
balamw
Apr 10, 03:15 PM
It looks like both operating systems have a few advantages and both operating systems have their share of annoyances. Truth is, I'm having a hard time finding a real advantage to switching.
That's why true "switchers" are rare. Those who have a need for Windows will continue to run Windows, in a VM, via Boot Camp or on a separate Windows machine.
However many of us who live in both OSes prefer Mac OS X on a Mac where it is appropriate.
The only "advantage" is being able to use OS X for the things it is good at.
I agree with you, in general principle. When I switched to Mac, I decided to learn the "Mac way" of doing things, rather than trying to make Mac work like Windows.
That's what I mean. Making Mac OS X work like Windows is a sure fire recipe for frustration. It's not Windows. Just like Windows 7 and Vista can still confuse hardcore XP users. It's just different.
For me, I have a huge music library and letting iTunes manage it for me is a huge load off of me. I ripped all of my ~1000 CDs to FLAC with EAC as the source of my iTunes AAC library, and am in the process of converting that all to ALAC so it can live in iTunes.
B
That's why true "switchers" are rare. Those who have a need for Windows will continue to run Windows, in a VM, via Boot Camp or on a separate Windows machine.
However many of us who live in both OSes prefer Mac OS X on a Mac where it is appropriate.
The only "advantage" is being able to use OS X for the things it is good at.
I agree with you, in general principle. When I switched to Mac, I decided to learn the "Mac way" of doing things, rather than trying to make Mac work like Windows.
That's what I mean. Making Mac OS X work like Windows is a sure fire recipe for frustration. It's not Windows. Just like Windows 7 and Vista can still confuse hardcore XP users. It's just different.
For me, I have a huge music library and letting iTunes manage it for me is a huge load off of me. I ripped all of my ~1000 CDs to FLAC with EAC as the source of my iTunes AAC library, and am in the process of converting that all to ALAC so it can live in iTunes.
B
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 04:16 AM
Amazing. Not a word in response.
Bill, all gay people want is to be accepted for what we are, not what you want us to be.
Not so different from what you want, is it?
I want to be accepted as I am. But my heterosexuality is not who I am. It's not my identity. It's a property I have. If I became gay, the homosexuality wouldn't change me into someone else. I wouldn't become, say, Jussi Bjorling, my favorite singer. But if I did become gay, I would have a property I never had before. If I become someone else by gaining or losing a property I might or might not have, I'll become someone else when my hair turns gray.
Bill, all gay people want is to be accepted for what we are, not what you want us to be.
Not so different from what you want, is it?
I want to be accepted as I am. But my heterosexuality is not who I am. It's not my identity. It's a property I have. If I became gay, the homosexuality wouldn't change me into someone else. I wouldn't become, say, Jussi Bjorling, my favorite singer. But if I did become gay, I would have a property I never had before. If I become someone else by gaining or losing a property I might or might not have, I'll become someone else when my hair turns gray.
Tundraboy
Apr 28, 07:28 AM
No surprise the iPad is just a fad and people are starting to realize how limited it is. Its frustrating on a lot of cool websites and no file system makes it very limited.
Gelfin
Mar 27, 10:43 PM
But what if changed thoughts and changed behaviors would make people even happier than than they would be without the changes?
That's a reasonable outcome too, and so long as the patient comes out at peace with himself, no credible psychologist would attempt to force someone to be gay either.
The available evidence about the viability of "conversion" might lead to some skepticism, and an expectation that the patient will "relapse" and return to therapy (something Nicolosi knows quite well), but the therapist ultimately has a responsibility to respect what the patient represents.
Not even Nicolosi tells his clients that they need to change their sexual orientation.
Really? Because this is nothing like anything Nicolosi has ever said publicly. His entire theory is that anyone who is gay is psychologically broken, and that making someone psychologically healthy automatically makes him straight. How could anyone infer it is not his position that his clients need to change their sexual orientation?
He says that NARTH is for people who want to change it.
Or whose parents demand they change it as a condition of parental love.
Besides, what is the threshold for "wanting" to change it? Being gay in this society is a colossal nuisance in many ways. Most of the most secure and confident gay men I've ever met would admit having at some point wished they were straight, just like many minorities sometimes find themselves wishing they were white, or some women occasionally wish they were male. It would be a lot easier, and in the case of homosexuality, often very much easier indeed. It's the only such situation in the modern day where children are actually denied the love of their parents and community and thrown into the streets. Cultural attitudes towards homosexuality make denial almost a given when one starts to realize one's own orientation is not the norm.
If these thoughts are so disruptive that the sufferer's life is impacted, then the sufferer needs therapy, not to make him into what he isn't, but to help him come to terms with himself in whatever way works best for him.
In a video I posted to this discussion, he says that therapy doesn't work well for clients who tell him they want to change because the Bible teaches that they shouldn't have homosexual sex.
And you get from this that he doesn't think people need to change? He's telling people why they are likely to be failures, warning them of attitudes that will make them failures, and preconditioning them to begin the long process of telling counselors what they want to hear.
What that quote says is, "being religious and wanting your religious beliefs to be compatible with your sexual identity is not sufficient. There will never be a compromise between your sexuality and your religion, and the religion cannot be wrong, so you must be, and you will fail if you don't accept that and truly loathe yourself as much as we expect you to. And if you don't, we're here to help."
Bottom line, NARTH calls only one specific outcome a success, and it is for gay people to become no longer gay, irrespective of psychological consequences, because that isn't what's important to them. Eliminating homosexuality is. Although they understand and accept that not all gay people will be receptive to their "treatment," they also believe that all gay people need to be converted. This is psychological quackery.
That's a reasonable outcome too, and so long as the patient comes out at peace with himself, no credible psychologist would attempt to force someone to be gay either.
The available evidence about the viability of "conversion" might lead to some skepticism, and an expectation that the patient will "relapse" and return to therapy (something Nicolosi knows quite well), but the therapist ultimately has a responsibility to respect what the patient represents.
Not even Nicolosi tells his clients that they need to change their sexual orientation.
Really? Because this is nothing like anything Nicolosi has ever said publicly. His entire theory is that anyone who is gay is psychologically broken, and that making someone psychologically healthy automatically makes him straight. How could anyone infer it is not his position that his clients need to change their sexual orientation?
He says that NARTH is for people who want to change it.
Or whose parents demand they change it as a condition of parental love.
Besides, what is the threshold for "wanting" to change it? Being gay in this society is a colossal nuisance in many ways. Most of the most secure and confident gay men I've ever met would admit having at some point wished they were straight, just like many minorities sometimes find themselves wishing they were white, or some women occasionally wish they were male. It would be a lot easier, and in the case of homosexuality, often very much easier indeed. It's the only such situation in the modern day where children are actually denied the love of their parents and community and thrown into the streets. Cultural attitudes towards homosexuality make denial almost a given when one starts to realize one's own orientation is not the norm.
If these thoughts are so disruptive that the sufferer's life is impacted, then the sufferer needs therapy, not to make him into what he isn't, but to help him come to terms with himself in whatever way works best for him.
In a video I posted to this discussion, he says that therapy doesn't work well for clients who tell him they want to change because the Bible teaches that they shouldn't have homosexual sex.
And you get from this that he doesn't think people need to change? He's telling people why they are likely to be failures, warning them of attitudes that will make them failures, and preconditioning them to begin the long process of telling counselors what they want to hear.
What that quote says is, "being religious and wanting your religious beliefs to be compatible with your sexual identity is not sufficient. There will never be a compromise between your sexuality and your religion, and the religion cannot be wrong, so you must be, and you will fail if you don't accept that and truly loathe yourself as much as we expect you to. And if you don't, we're here to help."
Bottom line, NARTH calls only one specific outcome a success, and it is for gay people to become no longer gay, irrespective of psychological consequences, because that isn't what's important to them. Eliminating homosexuality is. Although they understand and accept that not all gay people will be receptive to their "treatment," they also believe that all gay people need to be converted. This is psychological quackery.
z4n3
Apr 13, 08:44 AM
Seriously - most you guys could walk into the Gates of Heaven, look at Jesus, and say "Is this all? This sucks."
I don't think I've read a comment here that even makes sense of the importance of this update - seriously - we have posters afraid that 10 year old kids will steal their jobs (get real people!)
The most important part of this update?
FCP is now 64 bit, using ALL parts of the processor, meaning that rendering is a thing of the past (depending on how souped up your system is) - that right there defeats Avid
This is a great update and one to be applauded - thank you APPLE for continually making video editing a cheap endeavor, that can remain professional - further pushing the forces at Avid to reduce the costs of their software
God Bless you Apple
(and last note - good editing happens because you're a GOOD EDITOR - not because you can 'afford' the right system)
200+ comments on this thread, and only one I can fully agree with :confused:
p.s. YES I am a Pro, YES I get paid to edit, and a Apple PRO user before most people here were even born! :p
HasanDaddy I tip my hat to you Sir. (if I had one anyway)
I don't think I've read a comment here that even makes sense of the importance of this update - seriously - we have posters afraid that 10 year old kids will steal their jobs (get real people!)
The most important part of this update?
FCP is now 64 bit, using ALL parts of the processor, meaning that rendering is a thing of the past (depending on how souped up your system is) - that right there defeats Avid
This is a great update and one to be applauded - thank you APPLE for continually making video editing a cheap endeavor, that can remain professional - further pushing the forces at Avid to reduce the costs of their software
God Bless you Apple
(and last note - good editing happens because you're a GOOD EDITOR - not because you can 'afford' the right system)
200+ comments on this thread, and only one I can fully agree with :confused:
p.s. YES I am a Pro, YES I get paid to edit, and a Apple PRO user before most people here were even born! :p
HasanDaddy I tip my hat to you Sir. (if I had one anyway)
jwdsail
Sep 20, 11:42 AM
Apple iPod Video Express... (I'm hoping to kill the 'Chicken Little' iTV name will get Apple sued stuff)
A hard drive? Hard to believe, I'd think some flash memory as a buffer, maybe 4GB? Perhaps you can add a HD via the USB 2 port? Too small to have a 3.5" drive.. May be too small for a laptop drive.. A 1.8" drive would add too much to the cost, wouldn't it?
I think w/ the HDMI output, and the price, what we're staring at is really a wireless upscaler... Take any content from your Mac, and wirelessly upscale to the native res of your TV (up to 1080p)...
If this is the case, I may just buy one in place of the Mac mini (w/ something other than Intel Integrated *SPIT* Graphics BTO, that will more than likely never happen...) that I've wanted to add to my TV...
Shrug.
Just my $0.02US
jwd
A hard drive? Hard to believe, I'd think some flash memory as a buffer, maybe 4GB? Perhaps you can add a HD via the USB 2 port? Too small to have a 3.5" drive.. May be too small for a laptop drive.. A 1.8" drive would add too much to the cost, wouldn't it?
I think w/ the HDMI output, and the price, what we're staring at is really a wireless upscaler... Take any content from your Mac, and wirelessly upscale to the native res of your TV (up to 1080p)...
If this is the case, I may just buy one in place of the Mac mini (w/ something other than Intel Integrated *SPIT* Graphics BTO, that will more than likely never happen...) that I've wanted to add to my TV...
Shrug.
Just my $0.02US
jwd
29point97
Apr 12, 11:55 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Just left. Waiting at the airport with some huge questions as a commercial editor. No talk of motion. If it's an app store download might be a small program no motion presets or content. I honestly wonder if there is a tape capture window. I didn't see a filters tab XML support or any kind os manager. Seems you edit color and export. I'm hoping it was just the sneakest of peeks and that there's a lot more hiding in there. Otherwise I'm holding onto fcp7 for dear life and wait for 11.
Just left. Waiting at the airport with some huge questions as a commercial editor. No talk of motion. If it's an app store download might be a small program no motion presets or content. I honestly wonder if there is a tape capture window. I didn't see a filters tab XML support or any kind os manager. Seems you edit color and export. I'm hoping it was just the sneakest of peeks and that there's a lot more hiding in there. Otherwise I'm holding onto fcp7 for dear life and wait for 11.
Demoman
Jul 13, 12:59 AM
Please don't confuse SMP with multi-socket. You must have an SMP (or even an ASMP) operating system to use any computer with more than one core.
It doesn't matter if the two cores are in one socket or two - both require SMP in order to manage the cores.
Saying that a dual-socket system is "SMP" and a single-socket dual-core system is "not SMP" shows that you don't quite understand the computer technology required to do multi-processing.
I know what Symetrical Multi-Processing is. Thanks.
It doesn't matter if the two cores are in one socket or two - both require SMP in order to manage the cores.
Saying that a dual-socket system is "SMP" and a single-socket dual-core system is "not SMP" shows that you don't quite understand the computer technology required to do multi-processing.
I know what Symetrical Multi-Processing is. Thanks.
r1ch4rd
Apr 22, 09:57 PM
And if over two thousand years from now people still believe in the Higgs Boson despite no evidence that it exists I'd likely be skeptical of their beliefs as well.
Hopefully we will find the answer soon enough because there are scientists working on both sides to prove and disprove the higgs boson and once we have it agreed one way or the other, we won't have many scientists preaching that you should have blind faith alone. The higgs boson is not going to be testing our loyalty!
The key thing for me that gives science credibility over religion is the ability to go back and revise your "beliefs" based on more recent findings or new understanding.
Hopefully we will find the answer soon enough because there are scientists working on both sides to prove and disprove the higgs boson and once we have it agreed one way or the other, we won't have many scientists preaching that you should have blind faith alone. The higgs boson is not going to be testing our loyalty!
The key thing for me that gives science credibility over religion is the ability to go back and revise your "beliefs" based on more recent findings or new understanding.
SPUY767
Mar 18, 02:39 PM
That when you do things like this, it hurts apple. Apple has a market to protect. If people keep doing this enough until the RIAA gets pissed and won't let apple sell music any more. It's just like complaining that apple hass had to change their DRM policies. It's not apple that is doing it, it's pressure from the Recording Industry. Apple has to walk an extremely fine line, and they do a goo djob of it, so those folks need to lighten up.
skunk
Apr 24, 05:59 PM
The freedom of women is an archaic subject. It is established that women generally had less rights as we go back in time.If it was the Word of God™ itself that came from Mohammed's lips, then surely it would sound less like the word of a warlike, bigoted misogynist. Jesus' words are remarkably peaceful and inclusive by comparison. Paul of course, and other "spokesmen" for the organisation, added all kinds of glosses and amendments which were not part of Jesus' original message as transmitted to us.
Anything that goes against Western Values is evil to me... or at least anathema. I don't like the term evil, it's too christian... as is anathema for that matter.Perhaps we can agree on haram? :)
Anything that goes against Western Values is evil to me... or at least anathema. I don't like the term evil, it's too christian... as is anathema for that matter.Perhaps we can agree on haram? :)
HBOC
Mar 11, 01:34 AM
Also the time of day there.. after 3pm..
alexf
Aug 29, 12:00 PM
These groups don't care at all about the environment. They only want to hinder businesses. These are the same groups that protest plans and lobby politicians to stop building power plants and refineries so the existing ones can be over worked (lower efficiency) and not allow for downtime for maintenance, further lowering efficiency. These groups have an agenda that has nothing to do with the environment. I believe that Apple does just fine, as do many other companies. I'll gladly buy my Merom MBP and sell my Rev E 17" pbg4 as soon as Apple makes it available to me. :)
Oh yeah? Please kindly explain to all of us just what the "real agenda" of these "evil groups" such as Greenpeace is...
With all due respect, are you asleep?
Oh yeah? Please kindly explain to all of us just what the "real agenda" of these "evil groups" such as Greenpeace is...
With all due respect, are you asleep?
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.
vniow
Jul 14, 02:13 PM
Can anyone tell me the purpose of dual drive slots nowadays? I can see the use for them (and had computers with) when they were limited to one function, i.e. DVD-ROM for one and a CD-RW for the other but now that everything can happen in one drive with speed not being an issue, is it really nececcary to have two?
citizenzen
Apr 24, 11:14 AM
What's the deal with religious people?
It's just tribalism, upon tribalism, upon tribalism.
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!"
It's just tribalism, upon tribalism, upon tribalism.
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!"