Warbrain
Sep 26, 07:43 AM
I'll be holding my Mac Pro purchase off for a while...
Why? You'll be waiting for a bit of a long time...
Why? You'll be waiting for a bit of a long time...
puma1552
Mar 12, 06:16 AM
Ugh, just as soon as I had posted...
Beg to differ. You've been praising Japanese nuclear power plant construction as being superior to the impoverished Soviet ones that go into meltdown. Well, we've all now seen your argument for the 'testament to building codes' by 'experts on Japanese nuclear regulations' totally explode and is now lying in rubble. Unless of course you now insist that the building exploding and cllapsing on the core is part of the building codes? ;):
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
Beg to differ. You've been praising Japanese nuclear power plant construction as being superior to the impoverished Soviet ones that go into meltdown. Well, we've all now seen your argument for the 'testament to building codes' by 'experts on Japanese nuclear regulations' totally explode and is now lying in rubble. Unless of course you now insist that the building exploding and cllapsing on the core is part of the building codes? ;):
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
rahrens
Sep 21, 08:33 AM
the iTV doesn't do HD either. Quoting Bob iger, Disney CEO:
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2066
Actually, Steve noted that the iTV WILL do HD. It does have an HDMI port out, doesn't it? The issue now is that the ITS doesn't have that content yet. But if YOU have something you've managed to record on your Mac or PC that IS HD, then, by all means, buy the iTV (or whatever they'll call it) and watch your stuff...
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2066
Actually, Steve noted that the iTV WILL do HD. It does have an HDMI port out, doesn't it? The issue now is that the ITS doesn't have that content yet. But if YOU have something you've managed to record on your Mac or PC that IS HD, then, by all means, buy the iTV (or whatever they'll call it) and watch your stuff...
Full of Win
Apr 12, 10:18 PM
So this is basically a jazzed up Final Cut Express and the pros have been shown the door. Why am I not shocked about this. :mad:
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
iMikeT
Aug 29, 11:01 AM
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?
Apple does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?
Apple does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?
pdjudd
Oct 7, 04:57 PM
Have you actually READ the link you posted?
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
CMelton
Apr 13, 06:07 AM
... The FCP pros at NAB sounded like teenage girls at a Justin Bieber concert.
So I'm going to assume it's good.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
If these guys like it then what's the problem? I'd guess they know what's good and what's not!
So I'm going to assume it's good.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
If these guys like it then what's the problem? I'd guess they know what's good and what's not!
awmazz
Mar 12, 06:02 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Not once have I said anything is safe. Not once have I said there is nothing to worry about; just the opposite--it's a serious situation and could get worse.
Beg to differ. You've been praising Japanese nuclear power plant construction as being superior to the impoverished Soviet ones that go into meltdown. Well, we've all now seen your argument for the 'testament to building codes' by 'experts on Japanese nuclear regulations' totally explode and is now lying in rubble. Unless of course you now insist that the building exploding and cllapsing on the core is part of the building codes? ;):
Unless you are an expert with a background in chemical/nuclear engineering, and an expert not only on just nuclear reactors but also Japanese nuclear regulations, then you aren't really in a place to criticize from halfway around the world.
Comparing them to the 30+ year old standards of the impoverished USSR is rather inappropriate.
a testament to the warning systems, the building codes and construction, and the seriousness with which these issues are taken by the Japanese and the preparedness they show.
BTW, this Japanese plant was built in 1971, which is *older* than the 30+ years you deride the old Soviet plants for being. So there's more of your 'expert because I've got two degrees' opinion lying in more not so expert after all rubble. Speaking of deriding:
With all due respect, somebody who doesn't even realize hydrogen is explosive isn't really in a position to tell someone holding two degrees in the field and speaking a good amount of the local language that he's de facto right and I'm de facto wrong.
With all due respect, I edited my post to self-correct my own fluff before I was quoted (as you can see there is no 'edited' footnote, I was quick but not quick enough), which means I did know so it's bad form to use it against me in a battle of dick-lengths. :p
Not once have I said anything is safe. Not once have I said there is nothing to worry about; just the opposite--it's a serious situation and could get worse.
Beg to differ. You've been praising Japanese nuclear power plant construction as being superior to the impoverished Soviet ones that go into meltdown. Well, we've all now seen your argument for the 'testament to building codes' by 'experts on Japanese nuclear regulations' totally explode and is now lying in rubble. Unless of course you now insist that the building exploding and cllapsing on the core is part of the building codes? ;):
Unless you are an expert with a background in chemical/nuclear engineering, and an expert not only on just nuclear reactors but also Japanese nuclear regulations, then you aren't really in a place to criticize from halfway around the world.
Comparing them to the 30+ year old standards of the impoverished USSR is rather inappropriate.
a testament to the warning systems, the building codes and construction, and the seriousness with which these issues are taken by the Japanese and the preparedness they show.
BTW, this Japanese plant was built in 1971, which is *older* than the 30+ years you deride the old Soviet plants for being. So there's more of your 'expert because I've got two degrees' opinion lying in more not so expert after all rubble. Speaking of deriding:
With all due respect, somebody who doesn't even realize hydrogen is explosive isn't really in a position to tell someone holding two degrees in the field and speaking a good amount of the local language that he's de facto right and I'm de facto wrong.
With all due respect, I edited my post to self-correct my own fluff before I was quoted (as you can see there is no 'edited' footnote, I was quick but not quick enough), which means I did know so it's bad form to use it against me in a battle of dick-lengths. :p
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:23 PM
You do realize that we live in a capitalist culture right, one of the greatest consumerist cultures to have ever existed on this planet. Do you honestly believe that purchased content, free of commercials, is going to work? It was all fine and dandy when it was Apple stopping file sharing but when it's Apple honing in on the terrain of a multi-billion dollar advertising system, they're going to face significantly more resistance. And that's why cable and satellite television aren't going away anytime soon. Either that, or you can expect to see commerials coming to your iTunes downloads in the future.
Actually as a media advertising agency owner I can tell you that you've got it backwards. Cable and Satellite are all planning to go to a totally on-demand solution much like iTunes. Commercials and advertising will evolve, through viral marketing and embedded content, as it always has. The days of linear programming cut up with ads are nearing their end.
Actually as a media advertising agency owner I can tell you that you've got it backwards. Cable and Satellite are all planning to go to a totally on-demand solution much like iTunes. Commercials and advertising will evolve, through viral marketing and embedded content, as it always has. The days of linear programming cut up with ads are nearing their end.
CTYankee
Oct 25, 10:40 PM
Each process is it's own thread. And most processes have multiple threads. Unless you only always have one program open at a time, more cores always can help speed up your system.
Open and doing something. Safari, Mail, iTunes, and working in photoshop probably won't benefit much from quad cores. Batching in PS, Aperture and doing a render in FCP would.
I am on the brink of buying something. What, time will tell. If the quad core does make a marked difference when running PS and at most one background process I'll consider it. Otherwise its a Dual core 2.66 for me.
Open and doing something. Safari, Mail, iTunes, and working in photoshop probably won't benefit much from quad cores. Batching in PS, Aperture and doing a render in FCP would.
I am on the brink of buying something. What, time will tell. If the quad core does make a marked difference when running PS and at most one background process I'll consider it. Otherwise its a Dual core 2.66 for me.
Moyank24
Mar 18, 01:43 AM
Option 3; STOP trying to cheat the system, and START using your iDevice the way the manufacturer and your carrier designed it.
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Do napster and limewire even exist anymore?
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Do napster and limewire even exist anymore?
jefhatfield
Oct 11, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
And I care why? It doesn't matter how fast you can surf on your PC. I can get around fast enough on my Mac. People who say Mac's are too slow are the same people that never take the time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid.
They are fast enough. They do what they are supposed to do the way they are supposed to do it.
The don't crash, don't get viruses, and don't look like something from the 1980s!
but look at dis man
gots to be able to surf da net fastest to see all da nekkid pictures before da wife comes de home:p
And I care why? It doesn't matter how fast you can surf on your PC. I can get around fast enough on my Mac. People who say Mac's are too slow are the same people that never take the time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid.
They are fast enough. They do what they are supposed to do the way they are supposed to do it.
The don't crash, don't get viruses, and don't look like something from the 1980s!
but look at dis man
gots to be able to surf da net fastest to see all da nekkid pictures before da wife comes de home:p
Speedy2
Oct 7, 01:04 PM
Sounds amazing like the same business model that has been followed by the Mac. A device with OS competing against an OS that will run on many devices. Current Mac market share 5.12% current Windows 92.77% (based on numbers from Market Share) . Does anyone else see this connection?
Yes. Google tries to be a better Microsoft by providing an _open_ software platform for multiple hardware makers, but they will not replicate MS's success, since MS dominated the OS market from the beginning and knew how to milk it whereas Google was late to a crowded party. Google may offer cheap drinks, but not fancier ones.
computers: MS and Intel take the cream and will do for a long time thanks to their near-unbreakable monopolies, most others are struggling.
mobiles: Nokia TOOK the cream in the past, in the future it will be Nokia, RIMM and Apple. It don't see any chance for Google to make equally big profits here. Android is merely treated as a means to secure their Web monopoly.
Yes. Google tries to be a better Microsoft by providing an _open_ software platform for multiple hardware makers, but they will not replicate MS's success, since MS dominated the OS market from the beginning and knew how to milk it whereas Google was late to a crowded party. Google may offer cheap drinks, but not fancier ones.
computers: MS and Intel take the cream and will do for a long time thanks to their near-unbreakable monopolies, most others are struggling.
mobiles: Nokia TOOK the cream in the past, in the future it will be Nokia, RIMM and Apple. It don't see any chance for Google to make equally big profits here. Android is merely treated as a means to secure their Web monopoly.
dpaanlka
Oct 20, 01:43 PM
So the high end will no longer be at 3ghz?
How hard can an extra 333mhz be to attain? Especially with these cool-running Intel chips.
How hard can an extra 333mhz be to attain? Especially with these cool-running Intel chips.
NathanMuir
Mar 25, 01:37 PM
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
All Christians are not Catholics. ;)
That's the only item I was trying to 'underscore' so to speak.
Christians cannot be used interchangeably with Catholics. By using the term 'Christians' one includes a multitude of other peoples with varying religious beliefs.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
And if one goes back and reads the entire exchange, one would see that I used that term so that Appleguy123 could not go find some obscure article on some obscure Catholic sect that murders Homosexuals for fun, a sect that the mainstream governing body of the Catholic church does not endorse nor have control over.
As I understand it, the Vatican is the mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic church. Is there another hierarchy that governs the Catholic church?
This is a thread on the Vatican's position regarding homosexuality and homosexual marriage, not violence, correct? Please correct me if that's not right.
And...?
IIRC, you're the one that introduced a timeline and then could not prove what link(s) at all it had with the topic of violence and Catholicism. IIRC, you're also the one that made up a statistic about how many of the offenses on the list were by 'Christians', not even Catholics. IIRC, you're also the one that attempted to introduce the umbrella term of 'Christians' as a synonym for Catholics (which it is not).
All Christians are not Catholics. ;)
That's the only item I was trying to 'underscore' so to speak.
Christians cannot be used interchangeably with Catholics. By using the term 'Christians' one includes a multitude of other peoples with varying religious beliefs.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
And if one goes back and reads the entire exchange, one would see that I used that term so that Appleguy123 could not go find some obscure article on some obscure Catholic sect that murders Homosexuals for fun, a sect that the mainstream governing body of the Catholic church does not endorse nor have control over.
As I understand it, the Vatican is the mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic church. Is there another hierarchy that governs the Catholic church?
This is a thread on the Vatican's position regarding homosexuality and homosexual marriage, not violence, correct? Please correct me if that's not right.
And...?
IIRC, you're the one that introduced a timeline and then could not prove what link(s) at all it had with the topic of violence and Catholicism. IIRC, you're also the one that made up a statistic about how many of the offenses on the list were by 'Christians', not even Catholics. IIRC, you're also the one that attempted to introduce the umbrella term of 'Christians' as a synonym for Catholics (which it is not).
Mac'nCheese
Apr 22, 08:07 PM
Didn't you know? Aside from owning Apple products it's also quite trendy being an atheist. They think they don't need to back up their points with Reason or facts so it's a kind of intellectual laziness which compels most people.
I'm not saying that I'm a devout Christian or anything of the sort, I'm agnostic, but it's based on Reason.
I consider myself an atheist who tries to back up my points with facts. I've seen most other posters who are atheists do the same. I hope you are wrong about it being a "trendy" thing to do but I do hope more people see the reasoning behind atheism and join us for the correct reasons. As far as agnostics go, I know the difference between us and I couldn't care less....close enough in my eyes!!!! An atheist and an agnostic arguing to me is like hearing a Catholic and a Protestant argue....such a small difference in something so important.
I'm not saying that I'm a devout Christian or anything of the sort, I'm agnostic, but it's based on Reason.
I consider myself an atheist who tries to back up my points with facts. I've seen most other posters who are atheists do the same. I hope you are wrong about it being a "trendy" thing to do but I do hope more people see the reasoning behind atheism and join us for the correct reasons. As far as agnostics go, I know the difference between us and I couldn't care less....close enough in my eyes!!!! An atheist and an agnostic arguing to me is like hearing a Catholic and a Protestant argue....such a small difference in something so important.
*LTD*
Apr 10, 12:33 PM
Mobile gaming has been around for years in the form of handheld consoles. Hasn't really affected consoles that you plug into your TV/monitor.
How is going to blur?
The psp slim & lite can output to a TV. Didn't really do much for PSP sales though. What use is it outputting a game from an ipad to the TV when you have limited control input options. The lack of buttons or real inputs will severely limit the types of games devices like the ipad can do.
I take it you do then :rolleyes:
This is Apple of and this is the iPad and iOS.
Entirely, entirely different ballgame from any other handheld on the market.
As far as the limits of touch-based gaming goes . . . come back in 2-3 years and *then* keep telling me about limits.
Interesting how Apple is turning non-gamers in to gamers, and we're not hearing about the alleged horrid limits of touch-based gaming.
Yes, and touchscreens on smartphones will *never* replace physical keyboards. We all know how that turned out, right?
Fear of change? It's thick in these forums.
In January 2010 people looked at the iPad and didn't quite understand what was going on. Didn't know where to put it, what category to fit it into. To some it was amusing at best. To others it was ridiculous and redundant. To a few it was total genius.
Today it's a household name and a device millions upon millions of people have and use every day - many of them just average, non tech-savvy folks. And it's the device that drives the post-PC era. And demand by both consumers and developers and content providers is exploding, and will continue unabated for the foreseeable future.
PSP Slim? DS? LOL is all I have to say. Like the Palm Centro and Cli� before the iPhone. These aren't even a factor anymore.
How is going to blur?
The psp slim & lite can output to a TV. Didn't really do much for PSP sales though. What use is it outputting a game from an ipad to the TV when you have limited control input options. The lack of buttons or real inputs will severely limit the types of games devices like the ipad can do.
I take it you do then :rolleyes:
This is Apple of and this is the iPad and iOS.
Entirely, entirely different ballgame from any other handheld on the market.
As far as the limits of touch-based gaming goes . . . come back in 2-3 years and *then* keep telling me about limits.
Interesting how Apple is turning non-gamers in to gamers, and we're not hearing about the alleged horrid limits of touch-based gaming.
Yes, and touchscreens on smartphones will *never* replace physical keyboards. We all know how that turned out, right?
Fear of change? It's thick in these forums.
In January 2010 people looked at the iPad and didn't quite understand what was going on. Didn't know where to put it, what category to fit it into. To some it was amusing at best. To others it was ridiculous and redundant. To a few it was total genius.
Today it's a household name and a device millions upon millions of people have and use every day - many of them just average, non tech-savvy folks. And it's the device that drives the post-PC era. And demand by both consumers and developers and content providers is exploding, and will continue unabated for the foreseeable future.
PSP Slim? DS? LOL is all I have to say. Like the Palm Centro and Cli� before the iPhone. These aren't even a factor anymore.
flopticalcube
Apr 26, 02:36 PM
Atheism is no more a religion than failing to believe in leprechauns is a religion..:rolleyes:
O'heresy!
But well put.
O'heresy!
But well put.
javajedi
Oct 9, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Even more interesting was the advertisement from Apple when the Blue and White G3 came out, and how cool the case was when it opened so simply, they said the "Mac was more open-minded." What amazes me though is there are still just as many Windows users who are biggots in this world as Mac users who are, or even more so. Being though in the minority as we are, Mac users feel all the more need to defend themselves against this biggotted crowd. Apple is trying its hardest to level the playing field by its Switch campaign, and show that it is on the same playing field so that Windows users can't ignore us and demean us with lies, fabrications, and these myths. Only we have some people come on this board who claim that the Mac is much slower. For what purpose? How do we fight ignorance? I work with PCs only because the job I enjoy the most is run by an organization that is biased against Macs, and I'm not in the position to decide how to move Macs into the organization. But it certainly doesn't help to have people who would bad mouth the Mac. It makes us feel more in the minority and feel more the need to defend ourselves. Let's stop this attrocity. Show them what the Mac can do, and it is a viable solution. And Arne, if you are reading these boards, please delete clearly PC biased hate posts ASAP.
Actually you are solidifying my point. How do we fight ignorance? It's very simple. You fight ignorance with facts; you fight ignorance with truth. As far as "But it certainly doesn't help to have people who would bad mouth the Mac..." No. Myself, and the many people on this board who share my viewpoint are not hurting the Mac. We are being sincere, honost and truthful. If you think my post was a "PC biased hate post" you are deeply mistaken. I'm sorry if you can't understand that.
Even more interesting was the advertisement from Apple when the Blue and White G3 came out, and how cool the case was when it opened so simply, they said the "Mac was more open-minded." What amazes me though is there are still just as many Windows users who are biggots in this world as Mac users who are, or even more so. Being though in the minority as we are, Mac users feel all the more need to defend themselves against this biggotted crowd. Apple is trying its hardest to level the playing field by its Switch campaign, and show that it is on the same playing field so that Windows users can't ignore us and demean us with lies, fabrications, and these myths. Only we have some people come on this board who claim that the Mac is much slower. For what purpose? How do we fight ignorance? I work with PCs only because the job I enjoy the most is run by an organization that is biased against Macs, and I'm not in the position to decide how to move Macs into the organization. But it certainly doesn't help to have people who would bad mouth the Mac. It makes us feel more in the minority and feel more the need to defend ourselves. Let's stop this attrocity. Show them what the Mac can do, and it is a viable solution. And Arne, if you are reading these boards, please delete clearly PC biased hate posts ASAP.
Actually you are solidifying my point. How do we fight ignorance? It's very simple. You fight ignorance with facts; you fight ignorance with truth. As far as "But it certainly doesn't help to have people who would bad mouth the Mac..." No. Myself, and the many people on this board who share my viewpoint are not hurting the Mac. We are being sincere, honost and truthful. If you think my post was a "PC biased hate post" you are deeply mistaken. I'm sorry if you can't understand that.
Photics
Apr 9, 09:53 PM
Here is an easy way to explain it. You can heat a slice of bread in a toaster and a microwave oven. Are you going to say microwaves compeat with toasters now. When they do not heat bread the same way.
That's a tough analogy, as it's true... microwaves and toasters can coexist. (Although, I don't have a microwave. It does strange things to pizza.) Yet, I don't think it's the same in the gaming world. Are iOS games really so different from other video games?
The only thing really lacking is a decent controller. There are so many ways to resolve this.
Example... put a motion sensing camera on the Apple TV. That $100-$150 box could be used for FaceTime and video games. I think that would be very popular.
Another Example... the remote control for the Apple TV could be expanded into a controller.
Yet Another Example... one iOS device can be used to control another. This technology is already in play.
I can't see how Apple making a Bluetooth controller, which, say looked a bit like a PS3/360 controller, and selling it as an optional accessory could be in any way a negative thing.
The negativity that I see is if it's an unsupported accessory. What if customers don't go out and buy it? What if developers don't modify their games to support it? There are lots of failed game accessories out there. While I doubt Apple will release the next Nintendo Power Glove, a goofy looking controller � like the PlayStation move � could be harmful to iOS gaming.
That's a tough analogy, as it's true... microwaves and toasters can coexist. (Although, I don't have a microwave. It does strange things to pizza.) Yet, I don't think it's the same in the gaming world. Are iOS games really so different from other video games?
The only thing really lacking is a decent controller. There are so many ways to resolve this.
Example... put a motion sensing camera on the Apple TV. That $100-$150 box could be used for FaceTime and video games. I think that would be very popular.
Another Example... the remote control for the Apple TV could be expanded into a controller.
Yet Another Example... one iOS device can be used to control another. This technology is already in play.
I can't see how Apple making a Bluetooth controller, which, say looked a bit like a PS3/360 controller, and selling it as an optional accessory could be in any way a negative thing.
The negativity that I see is if it's an unsupported accessory. What if customers don't go out and buy it? What if developers don't modify their games to support it? There are lots of failed game accessories out there. While I doubt Apple will release the next Nintendo Power Glove, a goofy looking controller � like the PlayStation move � could be harmful to iOS gaming.
R.Perez
Apr 15, 02:49 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWYqsaJk_U8
Well worth the watch. Im so glad they did this.
that made me tear up for sure. thanks for posting it. The Trevor project is a really great organization.
Well worth the watch. Im so glad they did this.
that made me tear up for sure. thanks for posting it. The Trevor project is a really great organization.
NikolasStow
May 2, 12:10 PM
I got this and immediately figured out it was a virus or some ****
Liquorpuki
Mar 14, 06:20 PM
I beg to differ: your electricity consumption is shocking too. It's all that AC. We Brits always made do with punkah wallahs. Useful local employment opportunities and saves on polluting the atmosphere, too. You have a ready supply of "illegals" who would jump at the chance.
Then you're probably more shocked at the Canadians, Norwegians, and Swedes, who consume more power per person than Americans do. Iceland consumes twice as much per person than us. And they don't even use AC.
Then you're probably more shocked at the Canadians, Norwegians, and Swedes, who consume more power per person than Americans do. Iceland consumes twice as much per person than us. And they don't even use AC.
firestarter
Mar 16, 11:36 AM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?