CaoCao
Mar 25, 09:59 AM
Subtract the individuals affiliated with gangs and the mentally unstable and we're staring at a long list of homosexuals murdered by "mainstream" individuals, many of whom attended church on a regular basis and were in fact catholic. That their religious affiliations are not immediately telegraphed is not evidence of absence, but rather of the fact that 76% of the population self-identifies as Christian.
Aren't we having a thread about religion dying?
Don't forget to subtract the victims who we aren't sure about them being killed because they were homosexual.
So, how many can you prove were Catholic, mentally stable and not in gangs?
People can BELIEVE whatever they want.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
"so frequently" ORLY? Prove it. To prove that the Catholic Church restricts rights you have to prove that the rights existed before.
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
To stretch my own analogy, it also ignores that the men who put on white hoods and terrorized black people were not "mainstream" white people either, but they were nevertheless acting on the attitudes held by "mainstream" white people. They were radical, but saw themselves as the ones with the strength of will to enforce the true will of the "mainstream." It's all very well to believe that the darkies should keep their place, but somebody's got to do the work of keeping them there when they step out of line.
However, I will return to what I touched on before: the Catholic Church (and Christian churches generally in the United States) currently have no need for terrorist thugs. They have great political influence and have convinced a significant plurality (seemingly no longer a majority, I am gratified to point out) that they are entitled to subjugate others bloodlessly and anonymously through the democratic process.
At least this is so until the courts clearly state once and for all that this is incompatible with our law and our society. Incidentally, that's also when the thugs will really come out, and you watch how many of them claim to be doing the Lord's work.
The Klan was basically an organization with the express purpose of keeping Negroes in line, can you prove an equivalent organization in the Catholic Church?
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
If we constantly expand the topic, none of what was previously said is relevant.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
You forgot the fact that many "Christians" in the US are fundamentalist nuts
Aren't we having a thread about religion dying?
Don't forget to subtract the victims who we aren't sure about them being killed because they were homosexual.
So, how many can you prove were Catholic, mentally stable and not in gangs?
People can BELIEVE whatever they want.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
"so frequently" ORLY? Prove it. To prove that the Catholic Church restricts rights you have to prove that the rights existed before.
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
To stretch my own analogy, it also ignores that the men who put on white hoods and terrorized black people were not "mainstream" white people either, but they were nevertheless acting on the attitudes held by "mainstream" white people. They were radical, but saw themselves as the ones with the strength of will to enforce the true will of the "mainstream." It's all very well to believe that the darkies should keep their place, but somebody's got to do the work of keeping them there when they step out of line.
However, I will return to what I touched on before: the Catholic Church (and Christian churches generally in the United States) currently have no need for terrorist thugs. They have great political influence and have convinced a significant plurality (seemingly no longer a majority, I am gratified to point out) that they are entitled to subjugate others bloodlessly and anonymously through the democratic process.
At least this is so until the courts clearly state once and for all that this is incompatible with our law and our society. Incidentally, that's also when the thugs will really come out, and you watch how many of them claim to be doing the Lord's work.
The Klan was basically an organization with the express purpose of keeping Negroes in line, can you prove an equivalent organization in the Catholic Church?
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
If we constantly expand the topic, none of what was previously said is relevant.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
You forgot the fact that many "Christians" in the US are fundamentalist nuts
rasmasyean
Mar 14, 06:49 PM
I forgot the name of the project but they are looking at using advanced high temperature superconductors to carry power from like some "mega power plant" type of setup.
EDIT: memory a little off. Tres Amigas Superstation is supposed to connect and share distributed power.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-tres-amigas-superstation-on-track-for-2014/
EDIT: memory a little off. Tres Amigas Superstation is supposed to connect and share distributed power.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-tres-amigas-superstation-on-track-for-2014/
robbieduncan
Mar 14, 12:12 PM
While the idea is ridiculous Lewis Carroll (who was a mathematician amongst other things:rolleyes:) did some work on the problem and in a fictional work came up with this:
"In Chapter 7 of Lewis Carroll's 1893 book Sylvie and Bruno. The fictional German professor, Mein Herr, proposes a way to run trains by gravity alone. Dig a straight tunnel between any two points on Earth (it need not go through the Earth's center), and run a rail track through it. With frictionless tracks the energy gained by the train in the first half of the journey is equal to that required in the second half. And also, in the absence of air resistance and friction, the time of the journey is about 42 minutes (84 for a round trip) for any such tunnel, no matter what the tunnel's length."
f
It's a cool idea but the frictionless materials to build the tracks from don't exist outside physics exam papers :(
"In Chapter 7 of Lewis Carroll's 1893 book Sylvie and Bruno. The fictional German professor, Mein Herr, proposes a way to run trains by gravity alone. Dig a straight tunnel between any two points on Earth (it need not go through the Earth's center), and run a rail track through it. With frictionless tracks the energy gained by the train in the first half of the journey is equal to that required in the second half. And also, in the absence of air resistance and friction, the time of the journey is about 42 minutes (84 for a round trip) for any such tunnel, no matter what the tunnel's length."
f
It's a cool idea but the frictionless materials to build the tracks from don't exist outside physics exam papers :(
leekohler
Mar 28, 09:34 AM
I should go to bed now. But before I do that, maybe a question will help explain part of my point about the difference between me and a property might gain or lose. If I asked "Who are you?" when we happened to see each other, would you reply that you were gay? I doubt it. You probably would say, "I'm Lee Kohler."
Yes, I would. But being gay is not a property I will ever lose. It's as much a part of me as my green eyes.
Yes, I would. But being gay is not a property I will ever lose. It's as much a part of me as my green eyes.
840quadra
Apr 28, 12:37 PM
You dont know what a fad is. Thats like calling dial up internet a fad because now pretty much everyone is using cable or fios internet. An ipod touch is still an ipod, its just better version of an ipod black/white.
A fad is something that comes alot that is huge for a short time then fades out. Just because tech advances doesnt mean the first gen was a fad.
No I understand quite well. Your example leads me to believe you don't.
People didn't wear, display, or carry their internet connection in public, they did the iPod.
Why do you think White headphones, and MP3 players of similar look / shape & form factor became popular (from other manufacturers mind you) after the iPod became popular? Likely because it was a popular look / gadget that many people wanted.
A fad rarely includes items of technology, but sometimes it does. The subject of the iPod being a fad isn't something just I created / think, it has been discussed for a few years now, especially since the introduction of the iPhone.
Cheers
A fad is something that comes alot that is huge for a short time then fades out. Just because tech advances doesnt mean the first gen was a fad.
No I understand quite well. Your example leads me to believe you don't.
People didn't wear, display, or carry their internet connection in public, they did the iPod.
Why do you think White headphones, and MP3 players of similar look / shape & form factor became popular (from other manufacturers mind you) after the iPod became popular? Likely because it was a popular look / gadget that many people wanted.
A fad rarely includes items of technology, but sometimes it does. The subject of the iPod being a fad isn't something just I created / think, it has been discussed for a few years now, especially since the introduction of the iPhone.
Cheers
lilo777
Apr 20, 09:13 PM
Open Terminal, run: ls /
Open the root HD folder in Finder.
See a difference?
I don't. I just don't have OS/X. I just assumed that OS/X might not have it since some OS/X users here were confused about Windows hiding system files. :)
More to your point though, all UNIX derivatives have some primitive form of this feature (well... somewhat different but still) as manifested in the behavior of "ls" (and other) command which by default "hides" the files which names start with "."
Open the root HD folder in Finder.
See a difference?
I don't. I just don't have OS/X. I just assumed that OS/X might not have it since some OS/X users here were confused about Windows hiding system files. :)
More to your point though, all UNIX derivatives have some primitive form of this feature (well... somewhat different but still) as manifested in the behavior of "ls" (and other) command which by default "hides" the files which names start with "."
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 12:23 PM
No. I am not blaming my confusion on semantics� ;)
So, according to your interpretation of the CCC:
unmarried straight couples are having "sinful" sex.
unmarried same-sex couples are having "sinful" sex.
married (but not in a church) straight couples are having sinful sex.
married (but not in a church) same-sex couples are having sinful sex.
married (Catholics) are having sinful sex, if not purely for reproduction.
Which leaves us with�
married (Catholics) are having righteous sex, but only if for reproduction.
Such fun!
Your list is almost right, but one thing to clarify, it's not "only for reproduction". Merely that it has to be open to the possibility of reproduction - i.e., no contraception. Also note that doesn't mean infertile people can't have sex. It just means the nature of the act itself isn't being deliberately subverted.
Catholics are not puritans and the sensual nature of sex is celebrated as well as the procreative nature.
So, according to your interpretation of the CCC:
unmarried straight couples are having "sinful" sex.
unmarried same-sex couples are having "sinful" sex.
married (but not in a church) straight couples are having sinful sex.
married (but not in a church) same-sex couples are having sinful sex.
married (Catholics) are having sinful sex, if not purely for reproduction.
Which leaves us with�
married (Catholics) are having righteous sex, but only if for reproduction.
Such fun!
Your list is almost right, but one thing to clarify, it's not "only for reproduction". Merely that it has to be open to the possibility of reproduction - i.e., no contraception. Also note that doesn't mean infertile people can't have sex. It just means the nature of the act itself isn't being deliberately subverted.
Catholics are not puritans and the sensual nature of sex is celebrated as well as the procreative nature.
HBOC
Mar 11, 01:44 AM
Scary. The videos they are showing are just incredible. Hopefully the worst of it is over and the loss of life is minimal.
My thoughts and prayers are with everyone over there.
I am betting the death toll is going to be in the tens of thousands, but let's hope I am horribly wrong.
My thoughts and prayers are with everyone over there.
I am betting the death toll is going to be in the tens of thousands, but let's hope I am horribly wrong.
Huntn
Mar 11, 06:08 PM
Not one but two reactors could be headed for meltdown. U.S. Rushes Coolant to Japan Nuclear Plant to Prevent Meltdown (http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/u-s-rushes-coolant-to-japan-nuclear-plant-to-prevent-a-meltdown/). Primary power was lost. A backup generator failed to start. Plant is venting radioactive steam... God, I hope this does not happen.
11.31am: The Associated Press has more details on the state of emergency issued at nuclear plant after its cooling system failed:
Chief cabinet secretary Yukio Edano says the nuclear power plant in Fukushima developed a mechanical failure in the system needed to cool the reactor after it was shut down in Friday's earthquake.
He said the measure was a precaution and there was no radiation leak at the Fukushima No. 1 power plant. He said the facility was not in immediate danger.
----------------------------------------------
Thats pretty bloody serious.... eeeek :eek:
11.31am: The Associated Press has more details on the state of emergency issued at nuclear plant after its cooling system failed:
Chief cabinet secretary Yukio Edano says the nuclear power plant in Fukushima developed a mechanical failure in the system needed to cool the reactor after it was shut down in Friday's earthquake.
He said the measure was a precaution and there was no radiation leak at the Fukushima No. 1 power plant. He said the facility was not in immediate danger.
----------------------------------------------
Thats pretty bloody serious.... eeeek :eek:
QCassidy352
Jul 12, 09:45 AM
I'd just like to direct all of your attention to this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=211175&highlight=conroe+merom+imac) and ask those of you who said merom was going to be in the imac: what were you thinking? :confused: ;)
I realize it's a little early to be gloating, but c'mon, it's definitely going to be conroe. Which, btw, I find even more exciting than the mac pro news because while I'll never have a mac pro, an imac is always possible. :cool: (though I'm thrilled about woodcrest in the mac pro anyway because it allows the imac to get conroe, and because it's great news for those of you who want a mac pro. :))
I realize it's a little early to be gloating, but c'mon, it's definitely going to be conroe. Which, btw, I find even more exciting than the mac pro news because while I'll never have a mac pro, an imac is always possible. :cool: (though I'm thrilled about woodcrest in the mac pro anyway because it allows the imac to get conroe, and because it's great news for those of you who want a mac pro. :))
Shivetya
Apr 6, 05:15 AM
Things you might find odd.
Very closed environment, limited games unless you bootcamp Windows. By closed I mean, really its not like you can bop down to any store and find software for your Mac (and no, the App store does not cut it).
No Mac product offers true customization like a PC. You get whats in the box and your stuck with it, unless of course you spend the money on a Mac Pro but even then it has many restrictions in what will work and won't. Think Linux with even less choice but at least when your given the choice that item will work.
Apps do not have a menu bar as part of their window. It always is at the top of the screen. This can be annoying at times for those used to positioning applications windows in specific parts of the screen because if need access to that apps menu and don't need the short cut you have to move the mouse to the top of the screen again. Probably the #1 interface dislike I have with OS X.
Apple mice, I know its not an OS thing, but the first thing any self respecting person does is buy a real mouse with the correct number of buttons.
The beach ball.
Very closed environment, limited games unless you bootcamp Windows. By closed I mean, really its not like you can bop down to any store and find software for your Mac (and no, the App store does not cut it).
No Mac product offers true customization like a PC. You get whats in the box and your stuck with it, unless of course you spend the money on a Mac Pro but even then it has many restrictions in what will work and won't. Think Linux with even less choice but at least when your given the choice that item will work.
Apps do not have a menu bar as part of their window. It always is at the top of the screen. This can be annoying at times for those used to positioning applications windows in specific parts of the screen because if need access to that apps menu and don't need the short cut you have to move the mouse to the top of the screen again. Probably the #1 interface dislike I have with OS X.
Apple mice, I know its not an OS thing, but the first thing any self respecting person does is buy a real mouse with the correct number of buttons.
The beach ball.
Caliber26
Apr 15, 10:27 AM
You would be one of them. It stings when the mirror is held up in front of you, doesn't it? I was like you at one time too, and I know where you are right now. At some point, you will come to understand that there is a difference between people who are simply trying to be themselves (us) and people who are trying to keep us from being ourselves (social conservatives). One deserves respect, one does not.
No, sorry. There's nothing stinging. And that's not a mirror he's holding up to me, either. He's basically telling me that I "hate" myself. That's a very strong word to use towards someone you don't know at all.
In case you haven't read my other posts: there is NOTHING wrong with being gay and disagreeing with certain aspects of homosexuality and the lifestyle attached to it, or what the media says and does in our "favor".
I'm sorry, dude, but this is not a case of 'crap or get off the pot'. We, as a gay community, are nothing more than a blend of a million different tastes and flavors. Sorry if MY way of being gay and dealing with it doesn't suit your interests, but it is what it is and not you, not that other poster, NOT ANYONE, has a right to tell me I hate myself because of what I believe in. You're just as narrow-minded and selfish as the conservatives you like to criticize.
No, sorry. There's nothing stinging. And that's not a mirror he's holding up to me, either. He's basically telling me that I "hate" myself. That's a very strong word to use towards someone you don't know at all.
In case you haven't read my other posts: there is NOTHING wrong with being gay and disagreeing with certain aspects of homosexuality and the lifestyle attached to it, or what the media says and does in our "favor".
I'm sorry, dude, but this is not a case of 'crap or get off the pot'. We, as a gay community, are nothing more than a blend of a million different tastes and flavors. Sorry if MY way of being gay and dealing with it doesn't suit your interests, but it is what it is and not you, not that other poster, NOT ANYONE, has a right to tell me I hate myself because of what I believe in. You're just as narrow-minded and selfish as the conservatives you like to criticize.
rovex
Mar 12, 07:58 AM
Ugh, just as soon as I had posted...
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
Not entirely sure with "the west hasn't been able to embrace nuclear power." France are the global leaders in nuclear power in terms of how many nuclear plants there are in France, and how much electricity is being generated in the country through nuclear energy. powering something like 80% of the country's electricity. And The French EDF corporation has operations worldwide.
More importantly, there have never been any severe deathly occurrences with nuclear power plants in france since a long time, and with the large number of plants they have (59), that's impressive.
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment, countries like china however continue to use coal as they main source of energy because they have tons of it and it's cheaper than making the foray into building nuclear plants. Which inevitably results in poor air quality all over the country.
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
Not entirely sure with "the west hasn't been able to embrace nuclear power." France are the global leaders in nuclear power in terms of how many nuclear plants there are in France, and how much electricity is being generated in the country through nuclear energy. powering something like 80% of the country's electricity. And The French EDF corporation has operations worldwide.
More importantly, there have never been any severe deathly occurrences with nuclear power plants in france since a long time, and with the large number of plants they have (59), that's impressive.
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment, countries like china however continue to use coal as they main source of energy because they have tons of it and it's cheaper than making the foray into building nuclear plants. Which inevitably results in poor air quality all over the country.
Naimfan
Apr 24, 11:25 AM
Well in that case anything could be classed as Christianity. Frankly I find that absurd. What's the point of identifying as a Christian if any interpretation of Christianity is considered OK? You may as well just call yourself a spiritualist as it would be closer to the truth.
I mean that kind of logic just annoys me no end. Either God exists or he does not. If he does exist one must assume that he intends the Bible to be read literally. If he didn't then why did he go through the whole bother of having it written by the disciples in the first place if people were just going to change and reinterpret it willy nilly based on whatever the current political or social ideals of the time are?
Based on what you've written, you have a very narrow view of what you consider to be "Christianity." You should perhaps spell that out--what I would infer from what you've written is that to "Christian" one must interpret the Bible (by which I assume you mean the Old and New Testaments) fairly literally and that any denomination which does not do so cannot be "Christian." Which would be news to many of the major Christian denominations.
Perhaps you should substitute "fundamental Christian" for Christian, since that term seems to be more in line with what you've written.
I mean that kind of logic just annoys me no end. Either God exists or he does not. If he does exist one must assume that he intends the Bible to be read literally. If he didn't then why did he go through the whole bother of having it written by the disciples in the first place if people were just going to change and reinterpret it willy nilly based on whatever the current political or social ideals of the time are?
Based on what you've written, you have a very narrow view of what you consider to be "Christianity." You should perhaps spell that out--what I would infer from what you've written is that to "Christian" one must interpret the Bible (by which I assume you mean the Old and New Testaments) fairly literally and that any denomination which does not do so cannot be "Christian." Which would be news to many of the major Christian denominations.
Perhaps you should substitute "fundamental Christian" for Christian, since that term seems to be more in line with what you've written.
Evangelion
Jul 12, 05:05 AM
Er...have you seen the MacBook Pro pricing? The MacBook pricing? The iMac pricing? The Mini pricing? (Which went UP by a fair amount). If you're thinking that x86 processors are cheaper than PPC, you're sadly mistaken. Cheap computers being cheap has just about nothing whatsoever to do with the CPU....
--Eric
Well, the Mini got more expensive, but it's capabilities went WAY up. Optical audio in and out, twice the USB-ports (fixing the two biggest complaints about the old Mini), built-in wireless, about twice as fast CPU (hell, the new low-end is propably over 50% faster than the old hi-end!) and Core Image compliant video.
Comparing price and capabilities, The Mini just got a whole lot cheaper :). The low-end Mini costs the same as the old hi-end Mini, but the new low-end Mini is a lot better than the old hi-end Mini.
--Eric
Well, the Mini got more expensive, but it's capabilities went WAY up. Optical audio in and out, twice the USB-ports (fixing the two biggest complaints about the old Mini), built-in wireless, about twice as fast CPU (hell, the new low-end is propably over 50% faster than the old hi-end!) and Core Image compliant video.
Comparing price and capabilities, The Mini just got a whole lot cheaper :). The low-end Mini costs the same as the old hi-end Mini, but the new low-end Mini is a lot better than the old hi-end Mini.
gugy
Sep 12, 05:19 PM
If the iTV streams HD content, then it's going to be heavily compressed HD content. Depending on the quality of the compression, it may look great on your flat panel and it may look just okay, we'll see.
Let's hope so.
I had trouble with Airtunes, so I have my fingers crossed expecting ITV will do a better job with music and videos (HDTV preferably).
If Apple can make this happen, this ITV hardware will be killer IMHO.
Let's hope so.
I had trouble with Airtunes, so I have my fingers crossed expecting ITV will do a better job with music and videos (HDTV preferably).
If Apple can make this happen, this ITV hardware will be killer IMHO.
Nermal
Mar 18, 04:51 PM
Second, it's a violation of DCMA.
Why? He's not breaking copy protection, because the protection wasn't there in the first place.
I can't believe that people think this is a bad thing. Don't you like freedom? :eek:
Why? He's not breaking copy protection, because the protection wasn't there in the first place.
I can't believe that people think this is a bad thing. Don't you like freedom? :eek:
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 10:49 AM
Yes. What part of it is a result of a scientific study?
I guess none of it resulted from a scientific study, but at least tests show that the relic contained human blood.
I guess none of it resulted from a scientific study, but at least tests show that the relic contained human blood.
Multimedia
Nov 3, 04:12 AM
Try reading what you are responding too. I'm fully aware of the consumer software that's available, but I also know the general consumer is not going to be archeiving HD broadcast recordings on their iMac.
I clearly was discussing quad core chips' appeal to the masses, and I'm correct that most software out isn't written for more than 2 cores.
Sure you and others have uses for quad core and more processors but don't act like a complete idiot and try and convince us that most people do. It's just stupid.
I'm all for advancing technology but I also understand that most poeple don't ever push their computers to the limit. You are a small niche, stop acting like you are an average Mac consumerI could not disagree with you more. So let's leave it at that.
I clearly was discussing quad core chips' appeal to the masses, and I'm correct that most software out isn't written for more than 2 cores.
Sure you and others have uses for quad core and more processors but don't act like a complete idiot and try and convince us that most people do. It's just stupid.
I'm all for advancing technology but I also understand that most poeple don't ever push their computers to the limit. You are a small niche, stop acting like you are an average Mac consumerI could not disagree with you more. So let's leave it at that.
skunk
Mar 14, 04:09 PM
what they went through was unprecedented, and beyond the worst case scenarios they were designed for, so if the accident is fully contained (which unfortunately seems less likely as time goes by) the whole system should be commended.Trouble with this argument is that if everything goes completely tits-up with any other kind of power station, the results are indeed containable, but in the case of a nuclear power station, the results can be catastrophically bad. It is taking a worst case scenario to a whole different level.
ElCidRo
May 2, 09:05 AM
so much for the no malware on macs myth :D
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
gopher
Oct 7, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by TheT
But Macs look better than most PCs :D
I don't dispute that.
But Macs look better than most PCs :D
I don't dispute that.
Bonte
Sep 20, 02:00 AM
iTV is basically a limited Mini with better remote control software, if i can use an Elgato eyeTV on it to record i'm buying for sure. Ideally would be an eyeTV with a USB 2 connection to add a big HD.
iJohnHenry
Mar 11, 07:20 PM
I pray that this will not turn into another Chernobyl situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment