beaster
Sep 12, 06:29 PM
Honestly though, who would want to stream HD??
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
If you cant see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV then you need a better TV or a better HD source. Also, 99% of the planet would be hard pressed to see much of a difference between 1080i and 720p, all else equal. Both have almost the idential # of pixels displayed per second. 720p is usually considered superior for fast-moving video, like sports (which is why ESPN, ABC, and FOX standardized on it). 1080i might have the edge on talk shows/news/etc. Now you may in fact be seeing a difference on your setup due to your particular display and/or source content, but in an apples to apples comparison, 720p and 1080i are neck and neck.
-Sean
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
If you cant see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV then you need a better TV or a better HD source. Also, 99% of the planet would be hard pressed to see much of a difference between 1080i and 720p, all else equal. Both have almost the idential # of pixels displayed per second. 720p is usually considered superior for fast-moving video, like sports (which is why ESPN, ABC, and FOX standardized on it). 1080i might have the edge on talk shows/news/etc. Now you may in fact be seeing a difference on your setup due to your particular display and/or source content, but in an apples to apples comparison, 720p and 1080i are neck and neck.
-Sean
portishead
Apr 12, 11:00 PM
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
I don't think many people are going to feel this way.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
How so?
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
Avid is still probably better for film work, but it's hard to tell until we get our hands on FCPX.
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
You can use a separate app. Nobody has said anything about abandoning color. I'm sure there will be a title tool. It's probably not ready yet. This was a PREVIEW after all.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
The app was re-written. Certainly features aren't going to carry over right away. Short term, there will be some drop off, but after a release or two, FCPX could grow into a nice app.
I don't think many people are going to feel this way.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
How so?
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
Avid is still probably better for film work, but it's hard to tell until we get our hands on FCPX.
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
You can use a separate app. Nobody has said anything about abandoning color. I'm sure there will be a title tool. It's probably not ready yet. This was a PREVIEW after all.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
The app was re-written. Certainly features aren't going to carry over right away. Short term, there will be some drop off, but after a release or two, FCPX could grow into a nice app.
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Jamieserg
Apr 13, 12:35 PM
I like the new Final Cut Interface the old one was getting tired. Plus rendering in the background will save me SO much time. A lot of my time is spent hitting cmd+r at the moment. Looks like a brilliant release but as always i'll save my final judgement for when I get my hands on it.
ATG
Nov 1, 03:46 PM
The problem is that Appkit isn't thread safe, and until it is you aren't going to see much on the multithreading side. It's fine for a renderer but for your run of the mill GUI app like keynote or pages or iLife there isn't much point.
Sydde
Apr 22, 08:50 PM
Atheists often, rightly or wrongly, seem to count agnostics in their number much as Blues is of classified as a part of Jazz (wrongly, IMO).
This document from census.gov (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0075.pdf) looks to me like it is showing a fairly steady increase in unbelief, which can only be a good thing.
On this forum, there only appear to be a lot of atheists because they tend to be outspoken, put forth strong arguments (the strength of which may be a matter of opinion), and respond quickly to religious nonsense.
This document from census.gov (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0075.pdf) looks to me like it is showing a fairly steady increase in unbelief, which can only be a good thing.
On this forum, there only appear to be a lot of atheists because they tend to be outspoken, put forth strong arguments (the strength of which may be a matter of opinion), and respond quickly to religious nonsense.
malohkan
Oct 7, 11:47 AM
I think the realistic expectation is: "If Apple doesn't make any more changes to the iPhone for the next 10 years, there will be an Android phone to beat it by 2020!!"
I feel like the trend is going to stay the same as it was with the G1. They're like "ooo look at our neat new features!!" Unfortunately, the iPhone/iPod just got those features, only better, just before you launched.
The competition just can't stay ahead, and Apple is going to keep it that way.
I feel like the trend is going to stay the same as it was with the G1. They're like "ooo look at our neat new features!!" Unfortunately, the iPhone/iPod just got those features, only better, just before you launched.
The competition just can't stay ahead, and Apple is going to keep it that way.
Michaelgtrusa
May 2, 10:07 AM
Be careful.
*LTD*
Apr 10, 11:04 AM
No they don't, they don't see it as a legitimate threat because it has very little industry support.
Believe this all you want, when a company like Epic sings the praises of iOS you'd best pay attention. It's had great impact on Nintendo's mobile plans and it terrifies Microsoft (who are praying that Xbox Live on WP7 matters to enough people). When mobile gaming (i.e., on the iPad) is making such inroads into mainstream gaming, it's eventually going to have an effect on the way consumers view mainstream console gaming. In fact, this is guaranteed.
You're holding too fast to the separateness of mobile vs. console. Over the next few years you'll see that separateness blur, and probably faster than anyone would have thought. There will be a definite, palpable melding. It's inevitable.
The App Store opened in July 2008. Now look at what we have in April 2011. It's astounding. And we're already trying to get mobile devices to project games onto HD tvs. It's very, very telling. It doesn't matter how successful it is *right now.* (pretty impressive, actually.) The point is, you can see where we're going with it. When Apple says "move over, Xbox!" they aren't being glib or fulsome. It's a portent. Just a taste of what's to come.
A lot of people around these boards have absolutely NO IDEA what Apple is capable of and what they're about to do to yet another industry. Just sit back and watch.
Believe this all you want, when a company like Epic sings the praises of iOS you'd best pay attention. It's had great impact on Nintendo's mobile plans and it terrifies Microsoft (who are praying that Xbox Live on WP7 matters to enough people). When mobile gaming (i.e., on the iPad) is making such inroads into mainstream gaming, it's eventually going to have an effect on the way consumers view mainstream console gaming. In fact, this is guaranteed.
You're holding too fast to the separateness of mobile vs. console. Over the next few years you'll see that separateness blur, and probably faster than anyone would have thought. There will be a definite, palpable melding. It's inevitable.
The App Store opened in July 2008. Now look at what we have in April 2011. It's astounding. And we're already trying to get mobile devices to project games onto HD tvs. It's very, very telling. It doesn't matter how successful it is *right now.* (pretty impressive, actually.) The point is, you can see where we're going with it. When Apple says "move over, Xbox!" they aren't being glib or fulsome. It's a portent. Just a taste of what's to come.
A lot of people around these boards have absolutely NO IDEA what Apple is capable of and what they're about to do to yet another industry. Just sit back and watch.
spicyapple
Oct 25, 11:18 PM
HDV render = 60% on every core. WTF?
What type of filters are you applying? Perhaps the plug-in hasn't been optimized for multiple cores.
What type of filters are you applying? Perhaps the plug-in hasn't been optimized for multiple cores.
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.
LagunaSol
Apr 28, 02:13 PM
Software might not need that powerful of a processor, but what about OS? Heck Itunes shutters on my bros 2008 Macbook Pro, which is basic software.
Huh? A 2008 MBP should have no problem running iTunes.
Flash can barely run on his computer also.
Flash for Mac sucks even on the most high-end Macs. Why do you think Mac users tend to dislike Flash? It's not the Mac - it's Adobe.
Huh? A 2008 MBP should have no problem running iTunes.
Flash can barely run on his computer also.
Flash for Mac sucks even on the most high-end Macs. Why do you think Mac users tend to dislike Flash? It's not the Mac - it's Adobe.
levitynyc
Apr 9, 05:15 AM
I would consider myself a hardcore gamer and I'm not ashamed of it. I went to PAX East the last 2 years and own all 3 home consoles plus a PSP, 3DS, DSi, iPhone and iPad. Gaming kept me away from all the drugs and alcohol that my friends were doing in high school. I'm almost 30 now and I'm married, have a good job, have a beautiful home and a beautiful wife, so lets not get stereotyped.
True, some iPad/iPhone games are "casual time wasters" but there are also some FANTASTIC games. Dead Space iOS is fantastic and guess what, ITS WAS 10 DOLLARS. True, its not as good as the console versions, but those sold for 60 DOLLARS.
Get off your friggin high horse when saying that App store gaming isn't real gaming.
The gaming industry is upset with Apple because Apple is finally giving customers the option to pay what customers think a game is worth, not what a console manufacturer thinks a game is worth. If Pilot Wings 3DS was an App store game, it'd be AT MOST 10 dollars. I bought it, I enjoy it, but I feel ripped off by the price.
This scares the hell out of Nintendo as their mandatory priced 40 dollar games are being compared not only in quality, but in PRICE to iOS games.
Tiger Woods golf is another great game on the consoles, but that game is 60 dollars. The iPad version is very very similar (doesn't have Augusta and online modes and a few other small things) but its only 10 bucks on the iPad and I'm sure it'll be on sale shortly.
Last year I picked up the iPhone version for 99 cents. I had more fun with that than the 60 dollar console version because at any time I could play a hole or 2 when I had a few minutes of down time at work.
EDIT: Sorry for the double post
True, some iPad/iPhone games are "casual time wasters" but there are also some FANTASTIC games. Dead Space iOS is fantastic and guess what, ITS WAS 10 DOLLARS. True, its not as good as the console versions, but those sold for 60 DOLLARS.
Get off your friggin high horse when saying that App store gaming isn't real gaming.
The gaming industry is upset with Apple because Apple is finally giving customers the option to pay what customers think a game is worth, not what a console manufacturer thinks a game is worth. If Pilot Wings 3DS was an App store game, it'd be AT MOST 10 dollars. I bought it, I enjoy it, but I feel ripped off by the price.
This scares the hell out of Nintendo as their mandatory priced 40 dollar games are being compared not only in quality, but in PRICE to iOS games.
Tiger Woods golf is another great game on the consoles, but that game is 60 dollars. The iPad version is very very similar (doesn't have Augusta and online modes and a few other small things) but its only 10 bucks on the iPad and I'm sure it'll be on sale shortly.
Last year I picked up the iPhone version for 99 cents. I had more fun with that than the 60 dollar console version because at any time I could play a hole or 2 when I had a few minutes of down time at work.
EDIT: Sorry for the double post
Gamoe
Apr 9, 05:12 AM
I think iOS games have great potential, but I still feel that there is a gap between okay and great that is differentiated by physical controls. All we need are a few buttons and a joystick and/or d-pad. But Apple's design-style doesn't seem to allow that, and I for one think that's a shame.
greenstork
Sep 12, 06:50 PM
Thank you!
Finally. Most people are not getting it.
The only thing keeps me from screaming of excitement is IF the wireless stream will be perfect. If Apple can make it work, I'll do exactly what you have described above. Elgato will be my next purchase at the same time I'll buy ITV.
Have fun sitting down to your computer to record shows. I get the vision, I reallly do, and I wanted Apple to pull it off better than anyone. But having to record HD content from one piece of hardware, convert it on my computer, load it onto iTunes and stream it to another piece of hardware (iTV) isn't exactly user friendly. The fact of the matter is, Apple doesn't really want you recording TV. So, while not impossible, you do have to jump through a few hoops. Having used TiVo for years, I would never convert to such a complicated system. If Apple had a DVR, they'd also have my business.
Finally. Most people are not getting it.
The only thing keeps me from screaming of excitement is IF the wireless stream will be perfect. If Apple can make it work, I'll do exactly what you have described above. Elgato will be my next purchase at the same time I'll buy ITV.
Have fun sitting down to your computer to record shows. I get the vision, I reallly do, and I wanted Apple to pull it off better than anyone. But having to record HD content from one piece of hardware, convert it on my computer, load it onto iTunes and stream it to another piece of hardware (iTV) isn't exactly user friendly. The fact of the matter is, Apple doesn't really want you recording TV. So, while not impossible, you do have to jump through a few hoops. Having used TiVo for years, I would never convert to such a complicated system. If Apple had a DVR, they'd also have my business.
SandboxGeneral
Mar 13, 09:44 AM
I'm all for nuclear power. It's the cleanest and usually the safest type of electricity available that can produce energy on a large scale.
There are inherent risks with nuclear power and there is the waste issue yet to be solved. But likewise, there are risks for other types of power, whether it's gas, oil, coal or even hydroelectric. Choose your poison.
As for the safety of nuclear energy, there are only two disasters that I know of, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. I think there was a 3rd more minor one once, but I don't recall.
I'm sure there have been more disasters with all the other types of energy plants that have happened over time. However, when a nuclear plant has a problem, it's always going to be a big one.
Despite the risks of nuclear power, I still support it's use in countries that are responsible.
There are inherent risks with nuclear power and there is the waste issue yet to be solved. But likewise, there are risks for other types of power, whether it's gas, oil, coal or even hydroelectric. Choose your poison.
As for the safety of nuclear energy, there are only two disasters that I know of, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. I think there was a 3rd more minor one once, but I don't recall.
I'm sure there have been more disasters with all the other types of energy plants that have happened over time. However, when a nuclear plant has a problem, it's always going to be a big one.
Despite the risks of nuclear power, I still support it's use in countries that are responsible.
MacMyDay
Sep 20, 01:06 AM
I know of at least one company (http://www.itv.com/) in the UK who won't be too happy if they keep that name.
DeepDish
Aug 29, 11:22 AM
My family, two parents and two kids, have purchased 6 ipods over the years.
Replaced batteries on two of them.
Never thrown any of them away.
Still use all of them. Why would anyone throw an out dated ipod away?
Replaced batteries on two of them.
Never thrown any of them away.
Still use all of them. Why would anyone throw an out dated ipod away?
Man4allsea
Feb 15, 04:24 PM
Erm.. you're being closed minded.
![]()
fishkorp
Mar 18, 05:47 AM
I'm waiting for the class action lawsuit as this is wrong. The service that people have bought is not somehow giving them more bandwidth or a higher amount of download data simply because they are tethering through the phone. The phone can only download so fast to begin with so any device you connect to it will still be limited.
Will never happen. The contract you signed with AT&T; specifically says the required data plan cannot be tethered without an additional fee. You agreed not to do it, they have every right to punish those that break the contract.
Will never happen. The contract you signed with AT&T; specifically says the required data plan cannot be tethered without an additional fee. You agreed not to do it, they have every right to punish those that break the contract.
Therbo
May 2, 09:41 AM
Please, enlighten us how "Unix Security" is protecting you here, more than it would on Windows ? I'd be delighted to hear your explanation.
A lot of people trumpet "Unix Security" without even understanding what it means.
The Unix Permission system, how a virus on Windows can just access your system and non-owned files, where Unix/Linux dosen't like that.
But of course it dosen't protect agaisn't bad passwords or stupidity.
A lot of people trumpet "Unix Security" without even understanding what it means.
The Unix Permission system, how a virus on Windows can just access your system and non-owned files, where Unix/Linux dosen't like that.
But of course it dosen't protect agaisn't bad passwords or stupidity.
ender land
Apr 23, 10:41 PM
This goes back to an earlier discussion where people were talking about the kinds of atheists that are out there. I've run into very few (none) who would describe themselves in the way you describe. And again, proving "a lack" of God is proving a negative, a logical fallacy.
Of course it is a logical fallacy, this is why there is an element of faith required to fully claim an atheistic belief. I should mention this is not necessarily totally different than a Biblical definition of faith - "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (Heb 11:1).
Most atheists are open-minded people, besieged by people of faith who though out history have made countless claims of deities and demons. All we ask is for some form of proof before we commit ourselves to accepting those claims. If requiring proof is your definition of faith, then you don't agree with the dictionary. But if it makes you feel better, then by all means, call it whatever you like.
I addressed this above. Even so, my previous example of the percentages applies here (well perhaps not, depending on how loosely you use atheist, he was specifically talking about ALL supernatural events, some people allow for supernatural stuff while being atheist).
At the very least it is an unshakable faith in human reason as the ultimate power in the universe.
As an aside, I also addressed your first part of this previously - this is what I meant by the two very similar statements mac'n'cheese quoted.
Of course it is a logical fallacy, this is why there is an element of faith required to fully claim an atheistic belief. I should mention this is not necessarily totally different than a Biblical definition of faith - "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (Heb 11:1).
Most atheists are open-minded people, besieged by people of faith who though out history have made countless claims of deities and demons. All we ask is for some form of proof before we commit ourselves to accepting those claims. If requiring proof is your definition of faith, then you don't agree with the dictionary. But if it makes you feel better, then by all means, call it whatever you like.
I addressed this above. Even so, my previous example of the percentages applies here (well perhaps not, depending on how loosely you use atheist, he was specifically talking about ALL supernatural events, some people allow for supernatural stuff while being atheist).
At the very least it is an unshakable faith in human reason as the ultimate power in the universe.
As an aside, I also addressed your first part of this previously - this is what I meant by the two very similar statements mac'n'cheese quoted.
zap2
Apr 11, 10:51 AM
I'm getting the 2010 mac mini Monday (and switching to OSX) but kinda worried what my dad will say about me getting one... I guess he can't do anything about it since it's my money
I think you'll love your Mac mini, I'm a big fan of the form factor.
As far as you father, I expect he'll be impressed with it if he's not a tech person. I know people always seemed impressed the Mac mini was a full computer, and OS X makes it even cool.
If he is a tech person, he might insist that PCs are cheaper, but not in the same form factor(its rather hard to find a simiar PC with Intel chip...Dell makes the Zino HD, but it runs on AMD) And you can always run XP/Windows 7 to make him happy.
I think you'll love your Mac mini, I'm a big fan of the form factor.
As far as you father, I expect he'll be impressed with it if he's not a tech person. I know people always seemed impressed the Mac mini was a full computer, and OS X makes it even cool.
If he is a tech person, he might insist that PCs are cheaper, but not in the same form factor(its rather hard to find a simiar PC with Intel chip...Dell makes the Zino HD, but it runs on AMD) And you can always run XP/Windows 7 to make him happy.
AP_piano295
Apr 23, 12:35 AM
I don't think atheism is a belief system, but it requires belief. Not believing in a god requires believing there isn't a god. You could say I'm just twisting words there.
I agree on all your points. I just can't bring myself to completely deny the existence of god, not through fear, but through fear.. of insulting my own intelligence. We can't prove god exists or doesn't exist, it seems impossible that we ever will. So I don't deny the existence of god, I do think it's unlikely and illogical, hence why I lean towards atheism (agnostic atheist).
Here's a hypothetical question:
Do you believe in witches? (I assume the answer is no)
Now we don't have a special word for people who don't believe in witches. You probably wouldn't claim that not believing in witches requires belief.
Now the fact that you don't believe in those things doesn't necessarily preclude their existence. You just don't believe in them, because I imagine nothing in your life experiences or in the evidence you have been presented suggests that true witches exist. Would you say that this viewpoint requires belief?
Do you think it's possible that you give religion and god undue weight and consideration because so many others believe in him/her/it and you have a hard time believing that so many people could be so totally wrong?
I agree on all your points. I just can't bring myself to completely deny the existence of god, not through fear, but through fear.. of insulting my own intelligence. We can't prove god exists or doesn't exist, it seems impossible that we ever will. So I don't deny the existence of god, I do think it's unlikely and illogical, hence why I lean towards atheism (agnostic atheist).
Here's a hypothetical question:
Do you believe in witches? (I assume the answer is no)
Now we don't have a special word for people who don't believe in witches. You probably wouldn't claim that not believing in witches requires belief.
Now the fact that you don't believe in those things doesn't necessarily preclude their existence. You just don't believe in them, because I imagine nothing in your life experiences or in the evidence you have been presented suggests that true witches exist. Would you say that this viewpoint requires belief?
Do you think it's possible that you give religion and god undue weight and consideration because so many others believe in him/her/it and you have a hard time believing that so many people could be so totally wrong?
