NebulaClash
Apr 28, 08:20 AM
A PC is something you work with not a fancy looking gadget. I don't see this happening in the next 5-10 years.
Excellent! I love it when people put these predictions down in black and white for posterity. OK, see you in 2020 when the Tablet Era will be ten years old, the dominant computer format people buy, and containing capabilities that we cannot even imagine now.
But you've put down in writing that it will not be something you work with even then. Noted.
Excellent! I love it when people put these predictions down in black and white for posterity. OK, see you in 2020 when the Tablet Era will be ten years old, the dominant computer format people buy, and containing capabilities that we cannot even imagine now.
But you've put down in writing that it will not be something you work with even then. Noted.
ddrueckhammer
Sep 12, 04:10 PM
This may be a great piece of hardware but until they lower download prices, be they buy or rent, I'm not really interested. This box makes the Apple offering more interesting than Amazon but the ability to rent for $4 makes the Amazon offering far more economical. Neither one will replace my Netflix account but the Amazon service comes alot closer...Anyone who pays these prices without extras or physical media is a fool IMO...
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 10:43 AM
That's true. I think, though, if anything, the hatred of another religion was a pretty strong motivational force in the US armed forces since 9/11. Especially right after, when many people joined up to fight the Muslims who attacked the USA.
Would attribute that to a personal religious motivation as opposed to an institutional one. Muslims serve in the US forces as well.
Would attribute that to a personal religious motivation as opposed to an institutional one. Muslims serve in the US forces as well.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:03 PM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
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?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
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?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
toddybody
Apr 15, 10:24 AM
Agreed. But you know what, some people deserve not one ounce of respect. The minute one crosses that line with me, and takes the liberty to label me as a self-hater, guess what, you've successfully lit a fire under my *** and I'm gonna talk back at you in a fitting way. Point blank.
You can go ahead and read thru all my posts in MacRumors and you'll see that I'm not a negative whiner, or one quick to disrespect others. But I have zero tolerance for people that are quick to label or judge me for my views.
Sorry dude, cant agree. Were ALL messed up folks in this world, and need constant grace. I definitely want to get as much as I can...cause I need it:) Stay well.
You can go ahead and read thru all my posts in MacRumors and you'll see that I'm not a negative whiner, or one quick to disrespect others. But I have zero tolerance for people that are quick to label or judge me for my views.
Sorry dude, cant agree. Were ALL messed up folks in this world, and need constant grace. I definitely want to get as much as I can...cause I need it:) Stay well.
dethmaShine
May 2, 12:55 PM
You and I have different meanings of safe. Opening a zip file that contains malware and then popping-up an installer without user intervention is hardly what I call safe.
Heck, auto-opening any kind of file is wrong as far as a proper security policy goes.
I wasn't talking about directory traversal. Just simple absolute Paths. You can make them using the -jj option to zip. This will store the full volume and path information and if you use unzip to extract the archive, it will try to place the file in that location on the system where you're unarchiving to.
Fortunately, it seems this is not what this is doing as Archive Utility does not honor absolute paths in a zip (I tested and confirmed it after someone came in earlier and spoke up about it), so something else is amiss here. Some people around other forums are suggesting that Archive Utility will automatically execute a .pkg if it is contained in an archive. Now that is unsafe if it is the case.
Not true. Just confirmed.
Heck, auto-opening any kind of file is wrong as far as a proper security policy goes.
I wasn't talking about directory traversal. Just simple absolute Paths. You can make them using the -jj option to zip. This will store the full volume and path information and if you use unzip to extract the archive, it will try to place the file in that location on the system where you're unarchiving to.
Fortunately, it seems this is not what this is doing as Archive Utility does not honor absolute paths in a zip (I tested and confirmed it after someone came in earlier and spoke up about it), so something else is amiss here. Some people around other forums are suggesting that Archive Utility will automatically execute a .pkg if it is contained in an archive. Now that is unsafe if it is the case.
Not true. Just confirmed.
dudemac
Mar 20, 05:41 AM
It's not "law," it's law. You live in a country, I presume? That means you're bound to the laws of your government, whether you find them morally sound or not. If you don't agree with the laws, renounce your citizenship and start your own community. It's great that you have morals and that they drive you to an understanding of what is acceptable, but your morality does not place you above the law. Law is a common morality imposed to preserve order and protect rights. It's not perfect all the time, but neither is human reasoning (including morality). People cannot make decisions based on their personal beliefs and just what they can do, as this causes the strong to dominate the weak. Basic social theory. Law and governance serve to protect rights and to act as a guardian against actions that harm others. Acting based on the Will to Power will divide the strong from the weak, causing even greater "division" among people. The same reasoning you use for your position can be used against your position--the common logical fallacy of ignorance.
Do not confuse your personal beliefs with supremacy over the law. If you know the law, know the consequences of breaking the law, and still choose to do so, that's your decision as an individual. You might not think that it was wrong to do what you did, but correctness is not solely up to you. We do not live in a Nietzschean world, and if the government finds you in violation of laws, you must face the consequences. This software is wrong because it breaks laws and furthermore is used to gain something to which you are not entitled (which is wrong, even without the multiple laws saying so).
People will do what they choose, whether it's right or wrong. Doing the right thing is easy enough. But if it's wrong, they'll attempt to rationalize until they arrive at a way for them to believe it was right, or they'll justify the decision based on a series of other evils/corruptions to cloak the decision in a grey area. Neither changes the reality or frees you from the consequences or potential consequences.
The first part of you statement is not a very intelligent one. If you believe a law to be immoral or against the freedom of the people then it is your duty especially in this country to stand up against it, not cower away and create a separate place to dwell. If everyone took your stance then when major changes need to happen to our laws people would have gathered together to leave the country instead of trying to work and fix the problem and raise awareness of the problem. There are many issues that fall under this and for what seems a rather well reasoned argument it fails because of this. So ignoring your first statement, you are correct in stating that laws are used to keep order in society and they should serve the interest and rights of the people. As soon as the laws no longer server this purpose there will be tyranny. Freedom of the people should be the most important thing. If you look at your life today and ask the question am I really free, the answer might scare you. Just look how much control is exerted over you life before you even get to make one decision. And when this control is coming from corporate interests it makes you wonder why and how people let this happen. Corporate wellness should never super seed the well being of the the people or trample the freedom of the people. As soon as you take away the ability to protest and to sometimes break the laws to effect change you have crippled society. And this kind of thinking starts "real" wars.
As for does this break laws, yes, but to better understand it is more like speeding than say a conspiracy to pirate music. It has been said many times that you still have to pay for the music, you just get something that is free of control. Now if you where running a p2p out of you house or directly selling it this might be a problem(but it would be no different than doing this with ripped CD's). However most of us just want to be able to play this on non apple players. Or in my case at work where I can not log into my account.
Do not confuse your personal beliefs with supremacy over the law. If you know the law, know the consequences of breaking the law, and still choose to do so, that's your decision as an individual. You might not think that it was wrong to do what you did, but correctness is not solely up to you. We do not live in a Nietzschean world, and if the government finds you in violation of laws, you must face the consequences. This software is wrong because it breaks laws and furthermore is used to gain something to which you are not entitled (which is wrong, even without the multiple laws saying so).
People will do what they choose, whether it's right or wrong. Doing the right thing is easy enough. But if it's wrong, they'll attempt to rationalize until they arrive at a way for them to believe it was right, or they'll justify the decision based on a series of other evils/corruptions to cloak the decision in a grey area. Neither changes the reality or frees you from the consequences or potential consequences.
The first part of you statement is not a very intelligent one. If you believe a law to be immoral or against the freedom of the people then it is your duty especially in this country to stand up against it, not cower away and create a separate place to dwell. If everyone took your stance then when major changes need to happen to our laws people would have gathered together to leave the country instead of trying to work and fix the problem and raise awareness of the problem. There are many issues that fall under this and for what seems a rather well reasoned argument it fails because of this. So ignoring your first statement, you are correct in stating that laws are used to keep order in society and they should serve the interest and rights of the people. As soon as the laws no longer server this purpose there will be tyranny. Freedom of the people should be the most important thing. If you look at your life today and ask the question am I really free, the answer might scare you. Just look how much control is exerted over you life before you even get to make one decision. And when this control is coming from corporate interests it makes you wonder why and how people let this happen. Corporate wellness should never super seed the well being of the the people or trample the freedom of the people. As soon as you take away the ability to protest and to sometimes break the laws to effect change you have crippled society. And this kind of thinking starts "real" wars.
As for does this break laws, yes, but to better understand it is more like speeding than say a conspiracy to pirate music. It has been said many times that you still have to pay for the music, you just get something that is free of control. Now if you where running a p2p out of you house or directly selling it this might be a problem(but it would be no different than doing this with ripped CD's). However most of us just want to be able to play this on non apple players. Or in my case at work where I can not log into my account.
kresh
Oct 26, 02:39 AM
Now we see what Apple saw - why the Mac Pro is strickly BTO.
Just add two more processor options for the X5355 and E5345, and this upgrade is done.
Wow, simply amazing. Kudos Apple!
Just add two more processor options for the X5355 and E5345, and this upgrade is done.
Wow, simply amazing. Kudos Apple!
Doraemon
Aug 29, 02:19 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?
So am I.
So am I.
.Andy
Apr 26, 05:41 PM
I could murder some toast.
http://jesustoasters.com/
http://jesustoasters.com/
dante@sisna.com
Oct 26, 12:03 PM
Thank you for both those posts. I have felt pretty alone on these 8-core threads thus far. Glad to finally see someone else who understands and can explain so well why 8-cores is still not going to be enough joining in on these discussions.
Any of you who don't think a 16-core Mac Pro will be a hit in a year can really only be into word processing. :p
You are welcome.
I have been reading your Mac Rumors posts for a long time and I am amazed at the bashing you take sometimes. I recall the days when people complained of Apple boxes being "too slow."
Now the posts I read on supposed pro sites like Mac Rumors are filled with users chiding one's need for speed -- I get the feeling that many of the users in this forum do simply have the workload to truly push these machines -- there is almost a sense of envy at users who do.
My suggestion to users feeling this envy is as follows: Learn new skills. If you make your living using a Mac as we do, then evolve with your box. Buy new software. Seek out new clients who want higher end multimedia for web and other distribution. Push the market to evolve.
Anyhow, I will contribute as much as my schedule allows.
Best regards to all.
Dante
Any of you who don't think a 16-core Mac Pro will be a hit in a year can really only be into word processing. :p
You are welcome.
I have been reading your Mac Rumors posts for a long time and I am amazed at the bashing you take sometimes. I recall the days when people complained of Apple boxes being "too slow."
Now the posts I read on supposed pro sites like Mac Rumors are filled with users chiding one's need for speed -- I get the feeling that many of the users in this forum do simply have the workload to truly push these machines -- there is almost a sense of envy at users who do.
My suggestion to users feeling this envy is as follows: Learn new skills. If you make your living using a Mac as we do, then evolve with your box. Buy new software. Seek out new clients who want higher end multimedia for web and other distribution. Push the market to evolve.
Anyhow, I will contribute as much as my schedule allows.
Best regards to all.
Dante
mspman
May 5, 12:45 PM
I've noticed over the past few weeks there have been more issues than normal with AT&T in Minneapolis. Last week and the week before it I was getting at least 1 dropped call a day, sometimes two. And there are times when I'm in my condo when I don't get 3G, only EDGE. And I live downtown, so this should not be happening. Very frustrating!!
samcraig
Mar 18, 12:04 PM
I agree.
I completely understand the idea that unlimited data should have to pay for tethering, although I think there should just be a cap prior to additional charges like verizon does.
What I dont understand is how they think charging tiered data customers for tethering is fair.
Agreed - and something I said several pages back...
I completely understand the idea that unlimited data should have to pay for tethering, although I think there should just be a cap prior to additional charges like verizon does.
What I dont understand is how they think charging tiered data customers for tethering is fair.
Agreed - and something I said several pages back...
timswim78
Sep 12, 05:41 PM
Ughh, I really hope that Apple upates this product before releasing it for sale.
Come one Apple, what about the:
- TV recording
- DVD player
- Built In Storage (Hard Drive)
- Input for digital cable
Some analogies:
- It's like an wireless XBOX 360, except it doesn't play games or DVD's.
- It's like a networked DVD player, without the DVD player.
I'd rather spend $300 on almost ANY OTHER electronics product.
What a disappointment... I guess Apple is just trying to stave off the competition from the media capabilities of Windows Media Center and XBOX.
Come one Apple, what about the:
- TV recording
- DVD player
- Built In Storage (Hard Drive)
- Input for digital cable
Some analogies:
- It's like an wireless XBOX 360, except it doesn't play games or DVD's.
- It's like a networked DVD player, without the DVD player.
I'd rather spend $300 on almost ANY OTHER electronics product.
What a disappointment... I guess Apple is just trying to stave off the competition from the media capabilities of Windows Media Center and XBOX.
jsw
Sep 26, 12:53 PM
...the DC PM is a DOG for even the simplest type of stuff.
Odd, since my three-year-old dual-2.0 PM still does a great job for more than just "the simplest type of stuff"... so you're saying that Apple actually made the dual-core PMs slower than their much-older dual-CPU ancestors?
Odd, since my three-year-old dual-2.0 PM still does a great job for more than just "the simplest type of stuff"... so you're saying that Apple actually made the dual-core PMs slower than their much-older dual-CPU ancestors?
mhar4
Oct 26, 01:40 AM
That is ridiculous. More proof, if any more was needed, that Apple made a big mistake in changing over to Intel.
leekohler
Mar 26, 07:23 PM
Who were the whores who continued to whore?
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Read your Bible. Sorry dude- I am the sum of my actions. So if you hate my actions, you hate me.
Many marriages don't get over the rough patch, some don't even try :(
What does that have to do with gay people getting married?
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Read your Bible. Sorry dude- I am the sum of my actions. So if you hate my actions, you hate me.
Many marriages don't get over the rough patch, some don't even try :(
What does that have to do with gay people getting married?
joemama
Sep 20, 07:18 PM
And I guess this is why Disney sold 125,000 movies the first week and Apple has sold millions of TV shows right?*
Please read more carefully next time. I was talking about TV and cable companies - not movies. Two completely different mediums.
And I prefaced my message with "after the initial buying rush." Of course they sold a lot of movies in the first week.
Please read more carefully next time. I was talking about TV and cable companies - not movies. Two completely different mediums.
And I prefaced my message with "after the initial buying rush." Of course they sold a lot of movies in the first week.
Old Muley
May 2, 09:36 AM
After seeing at least two posters refer to this as a "virus", I'm sitting here doing a face palm. One more "it's a virus" comment and I'm moving up to the double face palm...
Huntn
Apr 22, 09:05 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.
Huh?? I'm the last person who usually defends Atheists around here (nothing against them) :), I'm Agnostic too, but regardless if I think they are out on a limb for my own personal reasons, using the scientific method, with no practical evidence of God is it really fair to accuse them of not thinking and being lazy?? Lol. It could be argued that believing there is no God for lack of evidence is stronger than believing in God based on faith (lack of proof).
Because it's harder to imagine that an intelligent designer had a hand in it than it is to imagine that everything happened by chance?
So you saying imaging is required in both cases cause we can't prove a thing? ;)
I'm not saying that I'm a devout Christian or anything of the sort, I'm agnostic, but it's based on Reason.
Huh?? I'm the last person who usually defends Atheists around here (nothing against them) :), I'm Agnostic too, but regardless if I think they are out on a limb for my own personal reasons, using the scientific method, with no practical evidence of God is it really fair to accuse them of not thinking and being lazy?? Lol. It could be argued that believing there is no God for lack of evidence is stronger than believing in God based on faith (lack of proof).
Because it's harder to imagine that an intelligent designer had a hand in it than it is to imagine that everything happened by chance?
So you saying imaging is required in both cases cause we can't prove a thing? ;)
Multimedia
Oct 26, 04:13 PM
I would think the dual quad cores are meant for clientèle a little up market from Adobe users.ROTFLMAO :D :p :) You're breaking my balls Ben.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:24 PM
There is no evidence that sexual attraction/orientation can be changed by anyone, not even the individual.
As I said, Dr. Spitzer disagrees. Please watch his video, CalBoy. I've already posted a link to it in the post where I mentioned Focus on the Family.
As I said, Dr. Spitzer disagrees. Please watch his video, CalBoy. I've already posted a link to it in the post where I mentioned Focus on the Family.
megadon
Nov 10, 03:40 PM
Or because it's an interesting debate that engages many minds in varying aspects of the possibilities.
Or maybe you're just incapable of recognising the fact that Mac users, on average, are smarter than PC users.
And by smarter, I mean we're more enquiring. We also tend not to write using lower case letters at the beginning of sentences, and use poor grammar. Why does that matter?, you might ask. Well, for a start, it's incorrect. But it's also ignorant and rude and immature.
So, when we debate, for five minutes or for a few days, maybe the smart thing to do is pay attention. The experience may just fill in the obvious gaps in your education.
thanks for proving me right. Facts are facts. 2 +2 = 4, there is no debate about it. It's like saying apple dominates the os market share compared to msft.
Or maybe you're just incapable of recognising the fact that Mac users, on average, are smarter than PC users.
And by smarter, I mean we're more enquiring. We also tend not to write using lower case letters at the beginning of sentences, and use poor grammar. Why does that matter?, you might ask. Well, for a start, it's incorrect. But it's also ignorant and rude and immature.
So, when we debate, for five minutes or for a few days, maybe the smart thing to do is pay attention. The experience may just fill in the obvious gaps in your education.
thanks for proving me right. Facts are facts. 2 +2 = 4, there is no debate about it. It's like saying apple dominates the os market share compared to msft.
Clive At Five
Sep 21, 11:33 AM
Yes there are limitations - the greatest at the moment being that i cannot use the eyehome to watch iTunes pyrchased Movies ( hence the need for the iTV/Teleport).
Yes... "TelePort."
My ingenious title is catching on... I realize this post is off topic but we're on page 9. how much more relevant conversation can be had on this topic?
Anyway, I think it would be totally sweet if there were a cult folowing of people who wanted to call it TelePort. Then Apple would have no choice but to call it that...
...well I mean they would have a choice...
...and they'd probably choose not to call it that...
...but it'd still be sweet...
...right, guys?
...guys?
-Clive
Yes... "TelePort."
My ingenious title is catching on... I realize this post is off topic but we're on page 9. how much more relevant conversation can be had on this topic?
Anyway, I think it would be totally sweet if there were a cult folowing of people who wanted to call it TelePort. Then Apple would have no choice but to call it that...
...well I mean they would have a choice...
...and they'd probably choose not to call it that...
...but it'd still be sweet...
...right, guys?
...guys?
-Clive
No comments:
Post a Comment