DrDomVonDoom
Apr 13, 01:29 PM
So basically what you are saying is that you are a two bit hack and a kid with just an ounce of creativity can easily replace you because any kid can afford a $300 program, whereas a $900 one keeps them artificially out of the game.
The really ironic thing about your post is that FCP 1.0 was a cost revolution itself bringing video editing to he masses for really the first time ever, which you took advantage of. Now that Apple is doing it again and you are at risk you seemingly outraged.
Try and get your facts right before spouting off and obviously you are no pro app user. Premier was before FCP and FCP was taken from premier as the person who built FCP was the same. Premier was the first cost revolution not FCP.1 as Macs didn't sell many at that point. It stands to reason that if you dilute something in price it will then be worth less, and in business you need a premium product to keep your head above water.. Its all very well Apple releasing garage band as this is ment for kids and individuals to play around with and when or if they decide to go and pursue this for a career they can up sell them to Logic or Pro Tools etc. This is a huge step up for that route, but what I am saying is this: If everyone has the same tools then how can it be called a pro app? The new FCP is pretty much based on Imovie and for those who dont except that try and use them both together and then you will see.
Take the Red camera.. this could sell for 5k and everyone would have one, so why would you pay a daily rate of $1500 to have someone use a camera that only costs $5k? Wake up and smell the coffee but as your post indicates you dont live in the real world as companies will pay more for something they feel is better than it really is. Its simple business logic and psychology. Companies pay a premium for a professional using professional gear not an app you download from the app store.
I think that is 'Professional' world that your living in is starting to change. Applications aren't just a forte of a few high and mighty code monkeys. For example I could go get Xcode off the App store and download it for 5 bucks, thats all you need to make a Killer iPhone app, 5 bucks. Angry Birds, made millions of dollers, and it started with 5 bucks. It could be used by a Fortune 500 company to create a in-shop app that can do much for the company, or it can be used by some kid in his room to create a game. This idea of there is a special elite out there is changing. Technology is embraced by everyone, and everyone born today will have the same oppertunity's to use them. Computers or Video Editing isn't just something that is done by geeks in a basement on some College campus using machines the size of desks. Its done by Granny's, Kiddo's, everyone. High Definition cameras are affordable to anyone with a little skill in saving. People aren't gonna need 'Professionals' forever. Why hire a Photographer for a wedding, when I can afford just as good Camera, photo editing software for less then it would be to hire them?
We can't keep professionals around just for the sake of keeping them around. If they are productive, if society needs them, then they will do fine. I'm sure your industry needs you, and plenty of regular joe's do to. But not forever, definatly not with the next generation of script kiddies and technology savvy teens.
The really ironic thing about your post is that FCP 1.0 was a cost revolution itself bringing video editing to he masses for really the first time ever, which you took advantage of. Now that Apple is doing it again and you are at risk you seemingly outraged.
Try and get your facts right before spouting off and obviously you are no pro app user. Premier was before FCP and FCP was taken from premier as the person who built FCP was the same. Premier was the first cost revolution not FCP.1 as Macs didn't sell many at that point. It stands to reason that if you dilute something in price it will then be worth less, and in business you need a premium product to keep your head above water.. Its all very well Apple releasing garage band as this is ment for kids and individuals to play around with and when or if they decide to go and pursue this for a career they can up sell them to Logic or Pro Tools etc. This is a huge step up for that route, but what I am saying is this: If everyone has the same tools then how can it be called a pro app? The new FCP is pretty much based on Imovie and for those who dont except that try and use them both together and then you will see.
Take the Red camera.. this could sell for 5k and everyone would have one, so why would you pay a daily rate of $1500 to have someone use a camera that only costs $5k? Wake up and smell the coffee but as your post indicates you dont live in the real world as companies will pay more for something they feel is better than it really is. Its simple business logic and psychology. Companies pay a premium for a professional using professional gear not an app you download from the app store.
I think that is 'Professional' world that your living in is starting to change. Applications aren't just a forte of a few high and mighty code monkeys. For example I could go get Xcode off the App store and download it for 5 bucks, thats all you need to make a Killer iPhone app, 5 bucks. Angry Birds, made millions of dollers, and it started with 5 bucks. It could be used by a Fortune 500 company to create a in-shop app that can do much for the company, or it can be used by some kid in his room to create a game. This idea of there is a special elite out there is changing. Technology is embraced by everyone, and everyone born today will have the same oppertunity's to use them. Computers or Video Editing isn't just something that is done by geeks in a basement on some College campus using machines the size of desks. Its done by Granny's, Kiddo's, everyone. High Definition cameras are affordable to anyone with a little skill in saving. People aren't gonna need 'Professionals' forever. Why hire a Photographer for a wedding, when I can afford just as good Camera, photo editing software for less then it would be to hire them?
We can't keep professionals around just for the sake of keeping them around. If they are productive, if society needs them, then they will do fine. I'm sure your industry needs you, and plenty of regular joe's do to. But not forever, definatly not with the next generation of script kiddies and technology savvy teens.
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).
Iscariot
Mar 25, 04:50 PM
And...?
I'm far from the first or only person who has deviated from the original topic. You can either move with the discussion, or virtually everything from page 2 on is off-topic. For those of you playing at home, the goalposts have now been moved from hatred to violence to violence specifically from a catholic source to violence specifically from a "real" catholic.
IIRC, you're also the one that made up a statistic
Despite your disregard for the pretext of civility, my source was wikipedia, which I did in fact cite in post #27. I'll thank you not to make unfounded accusations.
I'm far from the first or only person who has deviated from the original topic. You can either move with the discussion, or virtually everything from page 2 on is off-topic. For those of you playing at home, the goalposts have now been moved from hatred to violence to violence specifically from a catholic source to violence specifically from a "real" catholic.
IIRC, you're also the one that made up a statistic
Despite your disregard for the pretext of civility, my source was wikipedia, which I did in fact cite in post #27. I'll thank you not to make unfounded accusations.
koobcamuk
Apr 9, 01:23 AM
Nope, obviously the biggest screen you have is your ipad. The console gaming experience is nothing like the mind numbing games which make the bulk of the App store. Sure there are maybe 20 games that have anything like the look of a console, but touch is no replacement for tactile feedback. Take a peek: Appshopper (http://appshopper.com/iphone/games/)
Nicely said. Even if you can output the iPod/iPhone/iPad video to a TV, it doesn't matter. The games are 99c for a reason! The app store is FULL of rubbish, as you rightly point out.
Nicely said. Even if you can output the iPod/iPhone/iPad video to a TV, it doesn't matter. The games are 99c for a reason! The app store is FULL of rubbish, as you rightly point out.
Xtremehkr
Mar 18, 09:35 PM
iTMS exists to sell iPods yes. But, if iTMS does not do something to protect the profits of those who allow iTMS to sell their songs then they will stop supplying iTMS with songs to sell.
There was a way to get around this before, but it was only used by a minority of people and considered an acceptable loss I guess.
What you have here is someone who is internationally advertising a way to beat copyright protections through iTMS, which hurts Apple as it may affect suppliers of music to iTMS.
There were ways to beat iTMS before and the best way was to avoid it altogether and use a P2P software.
This to me is different however. It is a direct attack on Apple aimed at disuading music labels from providing iTMS with songs to download.
In this instance I stand with Apple, as the MP3 market heats up, one of the determining factors in who people choose to buy their music from is going to be exclusive content. Labels are not going to release material to distributors who cannot assure that their material won't be easily pirated.
*If they fix this hole and leave everything else in place there really is no problem*
The songs iTMS sells are not their own! iTMS is a middleman that is not guaranteed access to the product that it resells. An essential part of selling iPods is being able to offer current music to play on them. iTMS needs to protect its ability to resell the music needed to use on iPods.
There was a way to get around this before, but it was only used by a minority of people and considered an acceptable loss I guess.
What you have here is someone who is internationally advertising a way to beat copyright protections through iTMS, which hurts Apple as it may affect suppliers of music to iTMS.
There were ways to beat iTMS before and the best way was to avoid it altogether and use a P2P software.
This to me is different however. It is a direct attack on Apple aimed at disuading music labels from providing iTMS with songs to download.
In this instance I stand with Apple, as the MP3 market heats up, one of the determining factors in who people choose to buy their music from is going to be exclusive content. Labels are not going to release material to distributors who cannot assure that their material won't be easily pirated.
*If they fix this hole and leave everything else in place there really is no problem*
The songs iTMS sells are not their own! iTMS is a middleman that is not guaranteed access to the product that it resells. An essential part of selling iPods is being able to offer current music to play on them. iTMS needs to protect its ability to resell the music needed to use on iPods.
MacSA
Jul 12, 04:02 AM
At the bottom of the article they seem to imply that Apple will stick with Core Solo chips for the entry level mini.... YUCK :eek:
EricNau
Sep 21, 04:34 PM
Dude. If this is your family, you need to be watching less TV and getting outside more. Or at least stay inside and play board-games with the kids. It's much more fun than vegging out on the couch.
geeze. Yeah, if I watched that much TV, I'd be complaining about the iTS too!
-Clive
It's not.
In my experience, video on demand is exactly what younger kids want. My boys (3 and 5, so not that far off your model family) watch more than their share of TV, but they tend to be quite "clumpy" in what they watch since they've grown up with PVRs all their life, they tend to watch lots of the same show, and rewatch things over and over. For instance tonight we were treated to 3 back-to-back episodes of "The Batman" from a recently released DVD and one episode of "Teen Titans" from the TiVo. I don't have to keep buying those shows, since once purchased or recorded, I have them. Tomorrow will be the younger one's choice, so my guess is we get to watch the Wiggles on DVD for the umpteenth time.
I do buy some shows on DVD of from iTunes just to get them off the PVR, to reward the content provider for things we enjoy, and create some space for new stuff to be recorded. For instance I bought two seasons worth of Dora The Explorer (49 shows) for $60.This works out to an average cost per episode of $1.22. On DVD they sell 4 episodes for $10-$16 which means a minimum cost per episode of $2.50, and up to $4. I no longer have to TiVo these and have them at my fingertips.
You're also still way off on your prices. The "multi-pass" for The Daily Show or Colbert is $9.99 for 16 shows (i.e. 4 weeks Monday-Thursday). You don't pay $2/show for them unless you're a masochist. Note also that you don't pay anything for half of the year since they are in reruns about half the time, so it works out to ~$60/year per show. (BTW What's the third TDS show? I guess I haven't been watching lately. :o)
News and sports are a completely different matter though.
B
You're right, my pricing was way off. When I originally calculated $150/month I was counting hours of TV multiplied by $2. Meaning I forgot to take into account season and multi-passes. Plus, when I was figuring daily shows I forgot to drop the weekends. :o
Either way, I am still willing to bet for a large family, cable is significantly cheaper (especially when you take into account all the TV watched for "background noise" (such as the food network)).
Plus the lack of news and sports and many, many TV shows would be a huge turnoff for a lot of customers.
geeze. Yeah, if I watched that much TV, I'd be complaining about the iTS too!
-Clive
It's not.
In my experience, video on demand is exactly what younger kids want. My boys (3 and 5, so not that far off your model family) watch more than their share of TV, but they tend to be quite "clumpy" in what they watch since they've grown up with PVRs all their life, they tend to watch lots of the same show, and rewatch things over and over. For instance tonight we were treated to 3 back-to-back episodes of "The Batman" from a recently released DVD and one episode of "Teen Titans" from the TiVo. I don't have to keep buying those shows, since once purchased or recorded, I have them. Tomorrow will be the younger one's choice, so my guess is we get to watch the Wiggles on DVD for the umpteenth time.
I do buy some shows on DVD of from iTunes just to get them off the PVR, to reward the content provider for things we enjoy, and create some space for new stuff to be recorded. For instance I bought two seasons worth of Dora The Explorer (49 shows) for $60.This works out to an average cost per episode of $1.22. On DVD they sell 4 episodes for $10-$16 which means a minimum cost per episode of $2.50, and up to $4. I no longer have to TiVo these and have them at my fingertips.
You're also still way off on your prices. The "multi-pass" for The Daily Show or Colbert is $9.99 for 16 shows (i.e. 4 weeks Monday-Thursday). You don't pay $2/show for them unless you're a masochist. Note also that you don't pay anything for half of the year since they are in reruns about half the time, so it works out to ~$60/year per show. (BTW What's the third TDS show? I guess I haven't been watching lately. :o)
News and sports are a completely different matter though.
B
You're right, my pricing was way off. When I originally calculated $150/month I was counting hours of TV multiplied by $2. Meaning I forgot to take into account season and multi-passes. Plus, when I was figuring daily shows I forgot to drop the weekends. :o
Either way, I am still willing to bet for a large family, cable is significantly cheaper (especially when you take into account all the TV watched for "background noise" (such as the food network)).
Plus the lack of news and sports and many, many TV shows would be a huge turnoff for a lot of customers.
Jumpin JW
Sep 2, 07:53 AM
"He never experienced dropped calls until we started dating and he was talking to me "
My daughter's phone does the same thing!
My daughter's phone does the same thing!
gkarris
Apr 23, 05:22 PM
I'm not cool enough to be an Atheist... :eek:
brianus
Sep 26, 12:47 PM
Tigerton is after Clovertown. It's 4 cores in a one dye package instead of 4 cores in two dyes in one package. But I'm not gonna wait for Tigerrton which I believe is scheduled for production in Spring 2007. Dual Clovertown is my next Mac for sure.
I'm aware of Tigerton, but I was told in another thread that it's not a true successor to Clovertown and could not possibly be used in a Mac Pro. That being the case, is Clovertown it until -- Harpertown?
I'm aware of Tigerton, but I was told in another thread that it's not a true successor to Clovertown and could not possibly be used in a Mac Pro. That being the case, is Clovertown it until -- Harpertown?
Piggie
Apr 28, 04:51 PM
I ran a dialup BBS from 1983-1992 and we had p0rn, FidoNet Email, discussion forums, software downloads, etc....
The Internet made stuff faster, more graphical, and brought stuff to a wider audience - but for us early birds, everything has always kinda been there.
I used a few Bulletin boards on old 300 baud modems, and also Prestel in the UK at 1200/75 speeds.
Don't know how many here are old enough and UK enough to remember using Prestel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prestel
The Internet made stuff faster, more graphical, and brought stuff to a wider audience - but for us early birds, everything has always kinda been there.
I used a few Bulletin boards on old 300 baud modems, and also Prestel in the UK at 1200/75 speeds.
Don't know how many here are old enough and UK enough to remember using Prestel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prestel
bigjohn
May 5, 11:33 AM
Works fine for me here in L.A.
Although I so rarely use voice anymore... I wish there was a 200 minute plan for like $19
Although I so rarely use voice anymore... I wish there was a 200 minute plan for like $19
RawBert
Mar 11, 10:07 AM
the tsunami videos are horrifying. :(
ct2k7
Apr 24, 06:32 PM
I would never claim any such thing. If anything, the Quran is more related to the books of the Old Testament, some of which Islam shares, hence the "People of The Book". The Ugaritic chief god, El, of course was the prototype for Yahweh/Jehovah/El/Allah, and the minor gods were kept on as "angels" by all three religions.
I completely agree with you. These Abrahamic religions do have a lot in common.
Edit, a few Christians tried to sue a Muslim representative here. It failed.
I completely agree with you. These Abrahamic religions do have a lot in common.
Edit, a few Christians tried to sue a Muslim representative here. It failed.
jmcrutch
Mar 18, 09:31 AM
sounds like someone on here thinks he's a lawya! Must have stayed in a holiday in last night.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 24, 11:30 PM
Well, only if you insist that yours is the ONLY What about the denominations that say "Here's what WE believe, but if someone believes something else, that's fine?"
That depends on what "that's fine" means. I don't want to coerce anyone into believing what I believe. Others are welcome to argue for what they believe when they agree with me and when they disagree with me. If you know that I'm mistaken about something, I you to show me that I'm mistaken about it because after you do that, I'll replace my false belief with the corresponding truth that you proved. But if "that's fine" implies relativism about truth, that implication is not fine, because relativism about truth, or at least some versions of it, are self-contradictory and every self-contradiction is always false.
Many atheists deny that God exists. Maybe they're right, but their denial implies that theism is either true or else false. If those atheists say that theism is nonsense, what do they mean by "nonsense?" If they mean that theism is neither true nor false, then they imply their denial is neither true nor false, since theism is the belief that at least one God exists, and "There is no God" is the denial of theism. By the law of the excluded middle, every proposition is either true or false, but not both.
That depends on what "that's fine" means. I don't want to coerce anyone into believing what I believe. Others are welcome to argue for what they believe when they agree with me and when they disagree with me. If you know that I'm mistaken about something, I you to show me that I'm mistaken about it because after you do that, I'll replace my false belief with the corresponding truth that you proved. But if "that's fine" implies relativism about truth, that implication is not fine, because relativism about truth, or at least some versions of it, are self-contradictory and every self-contradiction is always false.
Many atheists deny that God exists. Maybe they're right, but their denial implies that theism is either true or else false. If those atheists say that theism is nonsense, what do they mean by "nonsense?" If they mean that theism is neither true nor false, then they imply their denial is neither true nor false, since theism is the belief that at least one God exists, and "There is no God" is the denial of theism. By the law of the excluded middle, every proposition is either true or false, but not both.
sinsin07
Apr 9, 06:47 AM
I was thinking the same thing. "In my day" a hardcore gamer was someone that custom built a gaming rig consisting of no less then 2 graphics cards (add a third and get SLI + PhysX), each costing at least if not more then a single PS3, the most expensive 'extreme' cpu they could find, and a small nuclear power plant for a PSU, then boasting about their 3D Mark scores.
2004 Anchorman - Movie reviews
Will Ferrell is set
Huntn
Apr 26, 10:49 AM
Nope. Unlike Captain Kirk. God is a firm believer in the Prime Directive (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Prime_Directive).:D
Anyhow, back on topic as why I'm religious? I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel. There's already someone who has perfected the moral system: Jesus. His moral system, IMO, is the best one. It's a hard system to follow, but if--big IF... no HUGE @$$ IF--everyone can follow that system of morals, the world would be a lot better place.
If you take the big spiritual premise, an Earthly life (average 70 years) followed by a spiritual life (eternity +), then I'd ask, which is our real existence? Yes, if God exits as most human imagine it to be, I could swallow the Prime Directive. There is more than ample evidence that if there is a divine presence, it does little to intervene in daily affairs, especially keeping people safe, rewarding good, and punishing bad. There are too many examples of the contrary. This is not to imply that divine intervention is impossible. Nothing is impossible and it could be that intervention is so ingrained into the flow of life we really can't identify it. For example if you find yourself in an iffy life threatening situation and you survive, why did you? Your will/skills, luck/probability, or a nudge from heaven? We really can't say and it would be an assumption to pick any reason. It can also be that our life on Earth is the equivalent of living in The Matrix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix), and elaborate simulation followed by opening our eyes in the real spiritual world. I'm not proposing, just imagining. ;)
As far as religion providing a good set of morals. In some cases yes, but this is completely a separate discussion and has no bearing, adds no weight to the possibility of the existence of God.
Allah decided that, and Allah precedes Islam (Muhammad's father's name was Abdullah [slave/servant of God]). The God of Islam bears little resemblance to the God of the New Testament.
But Allah is a great poster boy for Atheists as to why religion is the root of all problems lol
Christianity, especially Catholicism has it's own colorful (blood red) history.
I think there are two or more "God" concepts. For me, the question is, Which one is correct if any "God" concept is correct. Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Muslims, and others disagree with one another about God's nature. That disagreement shows me that at least one person is mistaken about it. If there's no God, then each theist is mistaken about that nature because there's no such nature, no such essence.
For years, Protestants have astounded me with their "sola scriptura," doctrine, partly because many Protestants disagree about that doctrine. A Baptist friend of mine even agrees with me me when I say that today "sola scriptura," which means "scripture alone" is a mere slogan." However you define the phrase, most Protestants who believe in the sola scriptura doctrine tell you that here on earth, the Bible is the only infallible source of divinely revealed truth. Unfortunately, sola scriptura's defenders don't seem to see that their principle explains largely why there are more than 30,000 Protestant denominations.
No, I'm not going to argue here for Catholicism because I've already told everyone that I needed to avoid discussions about it and discussions about homosexuality. I bring up sola scriptura because it convinces(?) many to ignore ancient extrabiblical documents that would help help explain what the Bible's human authors meant by what they wrote. Many people, even many Catholics, I'm sure, read the Bible as though it's a 21st-century book. They ignore ancient history, literary genres, anthropology, philosophical arguments for theism . . . Just you I need context when I interpret you tell me, I need much more context when I read the Bible, context I can't get from it. You and I can assume a lot about the context because we're contemporaries. But 2,000 years from now, when scholars read what 21st-century authors wrote, they probably will have much the same problem that many Bible-readers have now, i.e., too little context.
I think God does miracles to support what he tells us. If you want me to give some examples of extrabiblical ones, I'll do that. But again, I'm not here to "sell" Catholicism. I'm trying to talk about Bible-related problems that can arise when people try to interpret many ancient documents.
Would you agree that there is ample evidence of the imperfection of scripture, of the interference of church leadership to mold and shape the message of ancient scripture to suit their agenda, to manipulate and control the sheep? And that ancient scripture based solely on it's existence and the message of ancient man really adds no weight to the existence of God as described by these scriptures? The big question besides Does God exist? is Does it have the qualities, rules, and expectations, we imagine it to have? I've always asked was there this flurry of Godly attributed activity that ceased completely after the passing of Jesus? Fact, fiction, or superstition? We have no way on this Earth of verifying the validity of ancient messages.
I'd love to hear of every day miracles, but my guess is we may disagree when it comes to the interpretation of such happenings. To reinforce, I do sense something I would describe as "spiritual", but I don't have enough info to address those feelings or assign responsibility for their existence. What is important for perspective is that I am not distressed to wait for the answer. :)
Anyhow, back on topic as why I'm religious? I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel. There's already someone who has perfected the moral system: Jesus. His moral system, IMO, is the best one. It's a hard system to follow, but if--big IF... no HUGE @$$ IF--everyone can follow that system of morals, the world would be a lot better place.
If you take the big spiritual premise, an Earthly life (average 70 years) followed by a spiritual life (eternity +), then I'd ask, which is our real existence? Yes, if God exits as most human imagine it to be, I could swallow the Prime Directive. There is more than ample evidence that if there is a divine presence, it does little to intervene in daily affairs, especially keeping people safe, rewarding good, and punishing bad. There are too many examples of the contrary. This is not to imply that divine intervention is impossible. Nothing is impossible and it could be that intervention is so ingrained into the flow of life we really can't identify it. For example if you find yourself in an iffy life threatening situation and you survive, why did you? Your will/skills, luck/probability, or a nudge from heaven? We really can't say and it would be an assumption to pick any reason. It can also be that our life on Earth is the equivalent of living in The Matrix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix), and elaborate simulation followed by opening our eyes in the real spiritual world. I'm not proposing, just imagining. ;)
As far as religion providing a good set of morals. In some cases yes, but this is completely a separate discussion and has no bearing, adds no weight to the possibility of the existence of God.
Allah decided that, and Allah precedes Islam (Muhammad's father's name was Abdullah [slave/servant of God]). The God of Islam bears little resemblance to the God of the New Testament.
But Allah is a great poster boy for Atheists as to why religion is the root of all problems lol
Christianity, especially Catholicism has it's own colorful (blood red) history.
I think there are two or more "God" concepts. For me, the question is, Which one is correct if any "God" concept is correct. Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Muslims, and others disagree with one another about God's nature. That disagreement shows me that at least one person is mistaken about it. If there's no God, then each theist is mistaken about that nature because there's no such nature, no such essence.
For years, Protestants have astounded me with their "sola scriptura," doctrine, partly because many Protestants disagree about that doctrine. A Baptist friend of mine even agrees with me me when I say that today "sola scriptura," which means "scripture alone" is a mere slogan." However you define the phrase, most Protestants who believe in the sola scriptura doctrine tell you that here on earth, the Bible is the only infallible source of divinely revealed truth. Unfortunately, sola scriptura's defenders don't seem to see that their principle explains largely why there are more than 30,000 Protestant denominations.
No, I'm not going to argue here for Catholicism because I've already told everyone that I needed to avoid discussions about it and discussions about homosexuality. I bring up sola scriptura because it convinces(?) many to ignore ancient extrabiblical documents that would help help explain what the Bible's human authors meant by what they wrote. Many people, even many Catholics, I'm sure, read the Bible as though it's a 21st-century book. They ignore ancient history, literary genres, anthropology, philosophical arguments for theism . . . Just you I need context when I interpret you tell me, I need much more context when I read the Bible, context I can't get from it. You and I can assume a lot about the context because we're contemporaries. But 2,000 years from now, when scholars read what 21st-century authors wrote, they probably will have much the same problem that many Bible-readers have now, i.e., too little context.
I think God does miracles to support what he tells us. If you want me to give some examples of extrabiblical ones, I'll do that. But again, I'm not here to "sell" Catholicism. I'm trying to talk about Bible-related problems that can arise when people try to interpret many ancient documents.
Would you agree that there is ample evidence of the imperfection of scripture, of the interference of church leadership to mold and shape the message of ancient scripture to suit their agenda, to manipulate and control the sheep? And that ancient scripture based solely on it's existence and the message of ancient man really adds no weight to the existence of God as described by these scriptures? The big question besides Does God exist? is Does it have the qualities, rules, and expectations, we imagine it to have? I've always asked was there this flurry of Godly attributed activity that ceased completely after the passing of Jesus? Fact, fiction, or superstition? We have no way on this Earth of verifying the validity of ancient messages.
I'd love to hear of every day miracles, but my guess is we may disagree when it comes to the interpretation of such happenings. To reinforce, I do sense something I would describe as "spiritual", but I don't have enough info to address those feelings or assign responsibility for their existence. What is important for perspective is that I am not distressed to wait for the answer. :)
DemSpursBro
Apr 9, 06:49 AM
Heat is a mixed bag. For "normal" use (we browsing, etc...) I find the situation better than the typical PC. I hated the Dell notebook work had issued me because it sounded like a wind tunnnel at idle. Gaming, or other intensive use of the system does generate a lot of heat and I would not recommend using it on your unprotected lap under those circumstances.
If you're talking about pre-built PC's, Dell in particular, than yes, most will heat around the same or worse than a Mac. However Dell and HP are known to be very bad brands. If we're talking laptops, then depending on the model you buy, some may also have heating issues that other brands will not. If we're talking PC desktops, hopefully you've built your own, but if you didn't you can install more fans, a better heatsink, better thermal paste, etc. without voiding your warranty. Last time I checked, if you open your Mac, it voids your warranty.
If you're talking about pre-built PC's, Dell in particular, than yes, most will heat around the same or worse than a Mac. However Dell and HP are known to be very bad brands. If we're talking laptops, then depending on the model you buy, some may also have heating issues that other brands will not. If we're talking PC desktops, hopefully you've built your own, but if you didn't you can install more fans, a better heatsink, better thermal paste, etc. without voiding your warranty. Last time I checked, if you open your Mac, it voids your warranty.
techy298
May 2, 08:26 PM
If anyone has information on how to download this file, as well as an apple id, please visit this page (https://discussions.apple.com/message/15116673)
thanks
thanks
gmcalpin
Apr 15, 10:31 AM
Perhaps those groups should make their own videos.
Thank you. (I mean, no ****, right?)
Thank you. (I mean, no ****, right?)
slu
Sep 12, 03:32 PM
Could you please provide a link to the coverage? I never heard of this.
Are you serious? Check the front page much? :rolleyes:
Are you serious? Check the front page much? :rolleyes:
AppleinJapan
Sep 20, 10:26 PM
Sounds like a very cool device.
But to be honest, I am hoping this is just one device of many TV integrated services for apple.
ie,
1- more dvr hdtv functionality
2- hdmi output in 1080p for television of computer and hdtv content
3- blu-ray drive for movies and for data use
4- Apple Televisions/monitors (yes tv's with speakers and hdmi inputs in addition to computer inputs)
5- Itunes movie shop with HDTV Rentals, not have to purchase everything, but instead be able to rent with unlimited views for 1 week. and viewing window can start when user initiates, ie, download lots of movies for a trip, then go view
well i can always hope. :-)
lets hope for a 60" Apple tv/monitor is coming for release soon. this would power a home theater and be usable for much more
All fine and well if YOU LIVE IN AMERICA but what about the other 99% of the world ???????? Apple must first provide the same content on all their stores.....I know its not Apples fault but this iTV device is going in the wrong direction if it is only going to play itunes movies etc etc.....The rest of the world is STILL waiting to buy tv shows....
But to be honest, I am hoping this is just one device of many TV integrated services for apple.
ie,
1- more dvr hdtv functionality
2- hdmi output in 1080p for television of computer and hdtv content
3- blu-ray drive for movies and for data use
4- Apple Televisions/monitors (yes tv's with speakers and hdmi inputs in addition to computer inputs)
5- Itunes movie shop with HDTV Rentals, not have to purchase everything, but instead be able to rent with unlimited views for 1 week. and viewing window can start when user initiates, ie, download lots of movies for a trip, then go view
well i can always hope. :-)
lets hope for a 60" Apple tv/monitor is coming for release soon. this would power a home theater and be usable for much more
All fine and well if YOU LIVE IN AMERICA but what about the other 99% of the world ???????? Apple must first provide the same content on all their stores.....I know its not Apples fault but this iTV device is going in the wrong direction if it is only going to play itunes movies etc etc.....The rest of the world is STILL waiting to buy tv shows....
Mac'nCheese
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Naturally we should just hedge our bets on one right? :confused:
Here in reality, its pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that in the interim until renewables are able to take the stage as our top producers we have to go with an "all in" approach. There is no silver bullet at this point in time.
I don't understand the point in subsidizing any of them. I guess the point is, if we don't, power would be too expensive for people to buy but if our taxes are used for the subsidizing, then stop 'em, don't tax us and then we would have that money for the more expensive power. Does that make sense? Here's what I think: oil and gas powered everythings aren't going away in our lifetime. Period. Drill as safely as possible and try to get off of mid-east oil. Meanwhile, learn the lessons of design flaws from past accidents and start building some nuke plants in safe areas of the USA. No new gas/oil/coal plants unless they make a difference in pollution or amount of power generator per fuel used. If they don't, whats the point? Just keep the old ones going. Let the market demands slowly bring us more and more electric cars and better options for charging them (someday: solar powered home/business charging stations). Listen to that crazy oil tycoon in Texas, and stop producing gas powered trucks and vans and the like; make natural-gas powered trucks. Let those who want to invest in true solar and wind power go for it; maybe in fifty/hundred years, that will be the way, who knows? If climate change is truly as dangerous and man-made as some say it is, there's no way we can flip a switch and solve this problem in just a few years. So stop trying. Little by little, new tech will get us to where we want to be.
Here in reality, its pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that in the interim until renewables are able to take the stage as our top producers we have to go with an "all in" approach. There is no silver bullet at this point in time.
I don't understand the point in subsidizing any of them. I guess the point is, if we don't, power would be too expensive for people to buy but if our taxes are used for the subsidizing, then stop 'em, don't tax us and then we would have that money for the more expensive power. Does that make sense? Here's what I think: oil and gas powered everythings aren't going away in our lifetime. Period. Drill as safely as possible and try to get off of mid-east oil. Meanwhile, learn the lessons of design flaws from past accidents and start building some nuke plants in safe areas of the USA. No new gas/oil/coal plants unless they make a difference in pollution or amount of power generator per fuel used. If they don't, whats the point? Just keep the old ones going. Let the market demands slowly bring us more and more electric cars and better options for charging them (someday: solar powered home/business charging stations). Listen to that crazy oil tycoon in Texas, and stop producing gas powered trucks and vans and the like; make natural-gas powered trucks. Let those who want to invest in true solar and wind power go for it; maybe in fifty/hundred years, that will be the way, who knows? If climate change is truly as dangerous and man-made as some say it is, there's no way we can flip a switch and solve this problem in just a few years. So stop trying. Little by little, new tech will get us to where we want to be.