Eraserhead
Mar 27, 02:21 PM
What he's saying is that sometimes its the person thats the issue not the article, and using the word homo is funny because that also refers to homosexual.
There's probably a phrase which sums it up more concisely.
There's probably a phrase which sums it up more concisely.
emotion
Sep 21, 09:11 AM
Ha ha how's that for conjecture? :)
I guess we'll see. I'll be surprised but it's not beyond the realms of possibility.
I guess we'll see. I'll be surprised but it's not beyond the realms of possibility.
tigres
Jun 7, 06:05 PM
52 dropped calls today. Full bars of course. AT&T says no problems.
FMP
FMP
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 06:20 PM
"interestingly, as the muslim population increases so too do reported cases of anti-semitic hate crimes."
Will people ever learn the whole correlation/causation thing? Come on. That line is NOTHING but a twisted attempt to cast the muslim population in a bad light. News flash people there are 1.5 BILLION Muslims in the world. If the religion is as dangerous as some would like us to believe, rather than just plain old extremism (as any religion has), then the world would be in total ruins by now. After all, a whole quarter of the world population is comprised entirely of terrorists :rolleyes:
Side note on correlation/causation
Interesting theory in International Relations:
No two countries with a McDonalds has been to war with one another in the last 30 years, therefore it is clear that McDonalds causes world peace.
You're saying the Middle-East, Maghreb, Persia, Central Asia, Pakistan/Afghanistan are not ruins?
Christian extremists bomb abortion clinics and are condemned categorically by many different mainstream Christian groups. Muslims bomb churches/barracks/checkpoints/bomb shelters and very few, if any high up clerics, condemn them. Who condemned the slaying of that Jewish family in Israel/gaza? They knifed a 3 month old toddler... Later, in Gaza, Hamas was handing out sweets and the people were celebrating.
The Christians who kill do not do so in the name of Christ, who would have been repulsed at their actions. It's not sanctioned anywhere in the Bible.
The Muslims, on the other hand....
Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies (Qur'an 8:60).
^ divine sanction for terrorism. It's a late surah too, so any surah about islam being tolerant, and no compulsion in religion, and do not murder are abrogated by it.
Will people ever learn the whole correlation/causation thing? Come on. That line is NOTHING but a twisted attempt to cast the muslim population in a bad light. News flash people there are 1.5 BILLION Muslims in the world. If the religion is as dangerous as some would like us to believe, rather than just plain old extremism (as any religion has), then the world would be in total ruins by now. After all, a whole quarter of the world population is comprised entirely of terrorists :rolleyes:
Side note on correlation/causation
Interesting theory in International Relations:
No two countries with a McDonalds has been to war with one another in the last 30 years, therefore it is clear that McDonalds causes world peace.
You're saying the Middle-East, Maghreb, Persia, Central Asia, Pakistan/Afghanistan are not ruins?
Christian extremists bomb abortion clinics and are condemned categorically by many different mainstream Christian groups. Muslims bomb churches/barracks/checkpoints/bomb shelters and very few, if any high up clerics, condemn them. Who condemned the slaying of that Jewish family in Israel/gaza? They knifed a 3 month old toddler... Later, in Gaza, Hamas was handing out sweets and the people were celebrating.
The Christians who kill do not do so in the name of Christ, who would have been repulsed at their actions. It's not sanctioned anywhere in the Bible.
The Muslims, on the other hand....
Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies (Qur'an 8:60).
^ divine sanction for terrorism. It's a late surah too, so any surah about islam being tolerant, and no compulsion in religion, and do not murder are abrogated by it.
Multimedia
Nov 2, 12:32 PM
Can't seem to find the above mentioned statement..
so its saying that the 2.66 won't be too power hungry in contrast to the higher models..?
Does this revive the whole 8-core excitement.. (multimedia) Do we still see a release this month.. worth purchasing?
Or are we still at the point.. where waiting till first quarter 07 is a better bet.?
I really need to make my mind up on when to buy :confused:I'm back where I was to begin with, ready to buy the 2.66GHz release I hope will happen Tuesday November 14. The lower power ones will also be slower with a slower FSB as well. I forgot to remember that.
Seems like next Tuesday November 7 will be the date for MacBook/mini C2D release. So that leaves only Tuesday November 14 right after Intel says Clovertowns are shipping because the following week is Thanksgiving-Black Friday. If it doesn't happen then, I imagine we're gonna have to wait for MacWorld Expo. :(
This is all me just guessing you understand.
so its saying that the 2.66 won't be too power hungry in contrast to the higher models..?
Does this revive the whole 8-core excitement.. (multimedia) Do we still see a release this month.. worth purchasing?
Or are we still at the point.. where waiting till first quarter 07 is a better bet.?
I really need to make my mind up on when to buy :confused:I'm back where I was to begin with, ready to buy the 2.66GHz release I hope will happen Tuesday November 14. The lower power ones will also be slower with a slower FSB as well. I forgot to remember that.
Seems like next Tuesday November 7 will be the date for MacBook/mini C2D release. So that leaves only Tuesday November 14 right after Intel says Clovertowns are shipping because the following week is Thanksgiving-Black Friday. If it doesn't happen then, I imagine we're gonna have to wait for MacWorld Expo. :(
This is all me just guessing you understand.
rasmasyean
Mar 15, 07:07 PM
Sorry doublepost but different topic now:
Wikileaks: Japan warned over nuclear plants
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8384059/Japan-earthquake-Japan-warned-over-nuclear-plants-WikiLeaks-cables-show.html
Why does this not surprise me? Japan nuclear has a long history of coverups and poor operational procedures - including mixing nuclear fuel in a bucket and being surprised when it went critical.
Even the UK here has a long history of blunders and covering up - look at Windscale, later renamed Sellafield in a PR move. Some of the radiation leaks here were only revealed decades later.
Building reactors to a 1 accident in 1000 years standard of protection, as pushed by the industry PR, is just not good enough. Given 100 reactors, that equates to a serious issue every 10 years on average, and we already have far more than 100 reactors globally.
None of this stuff is ever "perfect". I'm sure the US has had it's share of "coverups" and "blunders" too even with all the "red tape" this country has. It's just that most people were keeping an eye on the part where they purposely blew them up! :p
No system is completely failproof. There's no such thing. You weigh the risk and then you accept them when it goes south.
Wikileaks: Japan warned over nuclear plants
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8384059/Japan-earthquake-Japan-warned-over-nuclear-plants-WikiLeaks-cables-show.html
Why does this not surprise me? Japan nuclear has a long history of coverups and poor operational procedures - including mixing nuclear fuel in a bucket and being surprised when it went critical.
Even the UK here has a long history of blunders and covering up - look at Windscale, later renamed Sellafield in a PR move. Some of the radiation leaks here were only revealed decades later.
Building reactors to a 1 accident in 1000 years standard of protection, as pushed by the industry PR, is just not good enough. Given 100 reactors, that equates to a serious issue every 10 years on average, and we already have far more than 100 reactors globally.
None of this stuff is ever "perfect". I'm sure the US has had it's share of "coverups" and "blunders" too even with all the "red tape" this country has. It's just that most people were keeping an eye on the part where they purposely blew them up! :p
No system is completely failproof. There's no such thing. You weigh the risk and then you accept them when it goes south.
TheT
Oct 7, 10:39 AM
I think Mac users just live in their happy little world and think their computers are still the best... well, wake up!
As of now, PCs kick every Mac's ass, they are just simply faster! Mhz may not matter that much, but a 2Ghz DP compared to a 1.25Ghz DP has to be faster, if you configure it right.
The reason I use a mac is the software, no Windows can beat OSX! And, as a matter of fact, my mac looks better than any of the pcs my friends have...
As of now, PCs kick every Mac's ass, they are just simply faster! Mhz may not matter that much, but a 2Ghz DP compared to a 1.25Ghz DP has to be faster, if you configure it right.
The reason I use a mac is the software, no Windows can beat OSX! And, as a matter of fact, my mac looks better than any of the pcs my friends have...
macidiot
Jul 12, 05:24 PM
Dude, take a chill-pill. Why does it matter so much to you if he uses XP?
I don't really care if he uses xp. I've loaded boot camp on my mbp. If xp better suits your needs, go for it.
The point was that pretty much everything he said was bogus and flame bait. Sadly, I took the bait.
I don't really care if he uses xp. I've loaded boot camp on my mbp. If xp better suits your needs, go for it.
The point was that pretty much everything he said was bogus and flame bait. Sadly, I took the bait.
iJohnHenry
Apr 15, 11:40 AM
I feel sad at how many of you are totally distorting the message of Christ.
Well, perhaps if the Bible didn't contain so much self-serving crap by religious 'elders', we might have a better chance picking out Christ's nuggets.
The real blame goes on those who use his name to sully his very purpose.
The real blame goes to those that cover themselves in His name, but only for false purpose.
Those false Christians make me sick.
OK, you got me on that one. Me too.
Well, perhaps if the Bible didn't contain so much self-serving crap by religious 'elders', we might have a better chance picking out Christ's nuggets.
The real blame goes on those who use his name to sully his very purpose.
The real blame goes to those that cover themselves in His name, but only for false purpose.
Those false Christians make me sick.
OK, you got me on that one. Me too.
manu chao
Mar 19, 12:10 PM
Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?
If you go to a concert, theatre play, any kind of performance or into any of fee-charging class or course and smuggle yourself in through some kind of backdoor without paying for the ticket or the course, did you steal anything?
Not according to your logic.
Should this behaviour be allowed?
If you go to a concert, theatre play, any kind of performance or into any of fee-charging class or course and smuggle yourself in through some kind of backdoor without paying for the ticket or the course, did you steal anything?
Not according to your logic.
Should this behaviour be allowed?
iMikeT
Aug 29, 11:04 AM
It's a tough one. I'd like to think that we could vote with our wallets over something like this, but unfortunately I need a computer, and there's no way I'm not using OSX.
I'd like to think we could still complain about it, but "Apple's annual shareholder meetings have seen frequent protests from environmental groups" makes me think that they don't really give a toss, which is bad, mmkay.
I don't really see why if Dell can do it, Apple can't.
Did I read that correctly?
I'd like to think we could still complain about it, but "Apple's annual shareholder meetings have seen frequent protests from environmental groups" makes me think that they don't really give a toss, which is bad, mmkay.
I don't really see why if Dell can do it, Apple can't.
Did I read that correctly?
SandynJosh
Apr 9, 02:25 PM
What's an assertation?
It's like a "revalation" without the "angals" sanging.
It's like a "revalation" without the "angals" sanging.
miniroll32
Apr 13, 03:39 AM
Is it any coincidence that the "so-called" Pros in this discussion (who have probably never even used FCP) are complaining about the Interface simply because it looks like iMovie, and so therefore must be "cheap/un-professional"? Its laughable! I'm sure these individuals don't even understand half the new features on offer which, of course, have been long waited.
My argument is simple - Unless you use this software on a regular basis, don't judge a book by its cover. Its no different to Logic Pro 8, for which I recall members were slamming because it had "no new big features", despite the fact it did.
My argument is simple - Unless you use this software on a regular basis, don't judge a book by its cover. Its no different to Logic Pro 8, for which I recall members were slamming because it had "no new big features", despite the fact it did.
capvideo
Mar 21, 01:37 AM
Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy.
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
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.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
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.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
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.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
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.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
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.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
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.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
Steve121178
Apr 28, 07:45 AM
Guessing 2012 see Apple shift up again? Redesigned MacBook Pro's, retina display iPad 3..
Doubtful. Windows 8 = large PC sales as people choose to upgrade etc
Doubtful. Windows 8 = large PC sales as people choose to upgrade etc
Th3Crow
Apr 28, 08:13 PM
Are you? Why do you think Windows 7 sells so well? All Mac users need to buy one.
That's hilarious! Do you really believe that? Half of the people I know started out with Windoze, and have since migrated to Mac. They've never looked back. None of them would think of contaminating their Mac with Winblows. I don't know a single person that started out Mac and moved to PC. Not one. And none of them feel any need to run Windows.
That's hilarious! Do you really believe that? Half of the people I know started out with Windoze, and have since migrated to Mac. They've never looked back. None of them would think of contaminating their Mac with Winblows. I don't know a single person that started out Mac and moved to PC. Not one. And none of them feel any need to run Windows.
generik
Sep 26, 01:39 AM
Can I ask a question? I'm a bit non-technical when it comes to things like this.
When particular apps aren't designed to use multiple processors � let's just say randomly, oooo... Adobe Illustrator, for example � what benefit would a machine like this have? Would it run exactly the same as on single processor of the same speed?
Thanks to anyone who can clarify this for me. :)
As far as that one application is concerned, no difference, but you get to do so much more in the background =)
When particular apps aren't designed to use multiple processors � let's just say randomly, oooo... Adobe Illustrator, for example � what benefit would a machine like this have? Would it run exactly the same as on single processor of the same speed?
Thanks to anyone who can clarify this for me. :)
As far as that one application is concerned, no difference, but you get to do so much more in the background =)
javajedi
Oct 10, 07:10 PM
I just ran the cocoa version on a 700mhz iBook..
get this: 73 seconds! Still very slow compared to x86, but considerably faster than my 800mhz G4 w/L3 cache??
If I recall the processor in the iBook is a 750FX IBM chip.
Amazing. All the more reason to go with an IBM chip for the future Pro Macs.
Thought you guys might find this intresting..
Kevin
get this: 73 seconds! Still very slow compared to x86, but considerably faster than my 800mhz G4 w/L3 cache??
If I recall the processor in the iBook is a 750FX IBM chip.
Amazing. All the more reason to go with an IBM chip for the future Pro Macs.
Thought you guys might find this intresting..
Kevin
milo
Sep 12, 03:33 PM
When this thing surpasses the capabilities of my Windows media center and Xbox 360 combo then I will be impressed. Until then Apple is playing catch up to MCE and playing it poorly.
Which cost what, five times what this will cost? The stuff you have will never go mainstream, it's way too expensive.
This is the same thing as having a mac mini connected to your TV...though I guess it has HDMI. This leads me to believe that they will release a Software Update for Front Row upon release of the "iTV".
Nope. This is nothing like a mini, other than the box. Looks like it doesn't even have a hard drive.
Why no computer with all of this functionality? this is kinda like front row, but not much extra?
Why can't we buy a mid sized tower (in stereo size) which can have HDMI 1080p output? with blu-ray drive built in?
Because that would be far more expensive, with little potential to get cheaper. Something based on a full computer would never get cheap enough to really catch on.
Which cost what, five times what this will cost? The stuff you have will never go mainstream, it's way too expensive.
This is the same thing as having a mac mini connected to your TV...though I guess it has HDMI. This leads me to believe that they will release a Software Update for Front Row upon release of the "iTV".
Nope. This is nothing like a mini, other than the box. Looks like it doesn't even have a hard drive.
Why no computer with all of this functionality? this is kinda like front row, but not much extra?
Why can't we buy a mid sized tower (in stereo size) which can have HDMI 1080p output? with blu-ray drive built in?
Because that would be far more expensive, with little potential to get cheaper. Something based on a full computer would never get cheap enough to really catch on.
Phat Elvis
Sep 12, 04:07 PM
There's no need for DVR functionality. Apple will replace your cable subscription. You just subsribe to the shows you want and al la carte other shows after that. Networks will probably even do the season premieres free to get you hooked or add sponsor the shows to make them free. TV on demand is obviously the next wave - even the cable companies know it and have on demand etc. I mean not to be racist but I'm happy to stop paying comcast for the 10+ stations that are in languages I don't even speak. I barely speak english - hahaha.
In conclusion - its the same data - just different timing.
I totally agree with this. This is the perfect device for Apple to start selling subscriptions to shows to replace cable. A la cart cable legislation is picking up steam and this will put iTunes in the cable business. Think about how many households have iPods, now compare that number to the HUGE number of houses that have cable. Wouldn't you rather pay for only the shows that you watch?
The think that worries me is that there is no mention of this device being able to play non-iTunes movies. What about if you back up a DVD to your computer. Can you play it on this? We'll have to wait and see.
In conclusion - its the same data - just different timing.
I totally agree with this. This is the perfect device for Apple to start selling subscriptions to shows to replace cable. A la cart cable legislation is picking up steam and this will put iTunes in the cable business. Think about how many households have iPods, now compare that number to the HUGE number of houses that have cable. Wouldn't you rather pay for only the shows that you watch?
The think that worries me is that there is no mention of this device being able to play non-iTunes movies. What about if you back up a DVD to your computer. Can you play it on this? We'll have to wait and see.
blue22
Apr 12, 11:00 PM
Steve Jobs said the new version would be "awesome," well I disagree. He was completely wrong... IT IS FREAKIN' ASTOUNDING! Bravo Apple!
+1
Yes, this is a great update for FCP. And the $299 price tag makes it that much more "astounding" so I don't know why some people here are bemoaning this release.
+1
Yes, this is a great update for FCP. And the $299 price tag makes it that much more "astounding" so I don't know why some people here are bemoaning this release.
killr_b
Oct 25, 11:01 PM
True but that new color correction software Apple just bought has some pretty steep requirements. I bet the next version of FCP will really be able to take serious advantage of their new wares. Also, I bet Leopard is going to be optimized to the limit for this type of hardware. Just my guess.
I hope so man, 'cause it's like having a ferrari and driving the speed limit.
Also can't wait to see what happens with the new CC aquisitions.
FCP color corection never impressed me.
I hope so man, 'cause it's like having a ferrari and driving the speed limit.
Also can't wait to see what happens with the new CC aquisitions.
FCP color corection never impressed me.
jimitrott
Feb 24, 06:07 AM
Android might surpass the iPhone. The iPhone is limited to 1 device whereas the Android is spanned over many more devices and will continue to branch out.
wordoflife
Mar 13, 01:48 AM
I hope the best for Japan. The pictures and videos are very horrifying and saddening.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий