OllyW
Apr 28, 11:42 AM
"But� 3.5% mac market share which includes stupid iPads as computers is pretty dismal (laughable even). "
That was his original comment.
Ah, my mistake.
Al's misread the table and I've misread Al's comments. :o
That was his original comment.
Ah, my mistake.
Al's misread the table and I've misread Al's comments. :o
Aduntu
Apr 22, 08:26 PM
Well supported points there :rolleyes:.
There are a-lot of atheists on these boards because there are quite a few far left atheists on these boards. Leftists are more likely to be atheists.
I like to believe it's because they make their decisions based on logic and reason.
Because the concept of earth and life just happening to explode into existence from nothing comes from logic and reason?
Interesting...
There are a-lot of atheists on these boards because there are quite a few far left atheists on these boards. Leftists are more likely to be atheists.
I like to believe it's because they make their decisions based on logic and reason.
Because the concept of earth and life just happening to explode into existence from nothing comes from logic and reason?
Interesting...
skunk
Apr 24, 11:36 AM
What part of
...
did you not compute?Oh, I computed it all right. You took one possibility out of four in order to make your argument appear stronger.
...
did you not compute?Oh, I computed it all right. You took one possibility out of four in order to make your argument appear stronger.
myamid
Sep 12, 07:17 PM
Here's another pic from the event today, taken by the Gizmodo guys...
http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701.JPG
http://www.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701-thumb.JPG
Looks like a squished Mini :p
http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701.JPG
http://www.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701-thumb.JPG
Looks like a squished Mini :p
ET007
Mar 18, 02:48 PM
Just because a company makes you sign their TOS, it does not make the TOS a Holy Grail law. TOS are only written in the best interest of a company and they are very often faulty.
Unfortunately in some countries, people forget to use common sense and reasoning and take everything the way it is BECAUSE it was written in the TOS, as so many people keep quoting in this forum.There is no such thing as a perfect TOS and even if you sign it, it does not mean you cannot challenge it.
Just because the TOS says so and you sign it, it does not make it right or the law. If it did, a lot of legal professionals would be unemployed and a lot of average Joes/Janes would be in jail.
AT&T is in the business to make money. They will take whatever they can get and however they can get it. AT&T is just as unethical as ......(you get to fill in the blanks ;)). It is up to the consumer to challenge AT&T's faulty TOS instead of just being passive, quoting and accepting it. It is amazing and worrisome how accepting some people are in this forum. I guess they do not teach critical thinking anymore in schools and/or colleges.
The sad part is that big companies are in bed with the politicians (republicans and democrats in the US) so the government will never step in to protect the interest of consumers.:mad:
Unfortunately in some countries, people forget to use common sense and reasoning and take everything the way it is BECAUSE it was written in the TOS, as so many people keep quoting in this forum.There is no such thing as a perfect TOS and even if you sign it, it does not mean you cannot challenge it.
Just because the TOS says so and you sign it, it does not make it right or the law. If it did, a lot of legal professionals would be unemployed and a lot of average Joes/Janes would be in jail.
AT&T is in the business to make money. They will take whatever they can get and however they can get it. AT&T is just as unethical as ......(you get to fill in the blanks ;)). It is up to the consumer to challenge AT&T's faulty TOS instead of just being passive, quoting and accepting it. It is amazing and worrisome how accepting some people are in this forum. I guess they do not teach critical thinking anymore in schools and/or colleges.
The sad part is that big companies are in bed with the politicians (republicans and democrats in the US) so the government will never step in to protect the interest of consumers.:mad:
Tommyg117
Sep 26, 06:53 AM
8 cores? That's a lot, maybe a little too much for my computing needs.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 04:03 PM
The point, though it's off-topic, is that your RC friend (that's a homophone, by the way) wanted, for reasons best known to himself, to communicate with you in Latin, but to translate a "sign of contradiction" you have to use the word for "sign" as in signifier (n), rather than the word for "sign" as in sign your name (vb). He obviously looked up the wrong meaning and thus mangled his translation.
If he did that, he goofed. But I know I made a mistake: I missed your point. Now I understand it. Thanks. Maybe he tried to communicate with me in Latin because he knows I usually attend the Traditional Latin Mass.
If he did that, he goofed. But I know I made a mistake: I missed your point. Now I understand it. Thanks. Maybe he tried to communicate with me in Latin because he knows I usually attend the Traditional Latin Mass.
Young Spade
Apr 25, 08:01 PM
I found it easy to move to Mac. I picked it up very quickly. I guess I just thought in terms of what I wanted to do in English and then searched the internets/mac for the command.
Also lot of it was easy because I found the Mac to be well organized and streamlined.
Not alot of tedious or unecessary clicks. Nothing seems to be as buried as it is in Windows.
The biggest thing I don't like about OSX is the tiny buttons and scrollbars and windows that can come up. Like the Finder Viewing Options window.
I find Windows easier to use in that aspect. Bigger buttons are just easier to mouse over and click. May look less refined, but easier to work with.
I completely agree. What I don't like though is the ability to customize the top organizational bars (unless you can? If so let me know lol) such as being limited to the name, size, kind, and date modified. I would love to change those.
Also lot of it was easy because I found the Mac to be well organized and streamlined.
Not alot of tedious or unecessary clicks. Nothing seems to be as buried as it is in Windows.
The biggest thing I don't like about OSX is the tiny buttons and scrollbars and windows that can come up. Like the Finder Viewing Options window.
I find Windows easier to use in that aspect. Bigger buttons are just easier to mouse over and click. May look less refined, but easier to work with.
I completely agree. What I don't like though is the ability to customize the top organizational bars (unless you can? If so let me know lol) such as being limited to the name, size, kind, and date modified. I would love to change those.
sprakope
Aug 29, 11:21 AM
Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.
Actually, the last shareholder meeting had the vote to start the computer recycling program. The board of directors recommended that the shareholders vote "No" but the shareholders decided that the recycling program was important.
I love Apple as much as the next guy, but that recommendation was irresponsible and backwards. Apple deserves this bad press.
[edited to fix the quote. i quoted the wrong post]
Actually, the last shareholder meeting had the vote to start the computer recycling program. The board of directors recommended that the shareholders vote "No" but the shareholders decided that the recycling program was important.
I love Apple as much as the next guy, but that recommendation was irresponsible and backwards. Apple deserves this bad press.
[edited to fix the quote. i quoted the wrong post]
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 11:37 PM
Spitzer says it's very rare and FOF are misquoting him and missusing his study.
FreeState, have you read the note I posted a link to the same video you posted, the one about what Spitzer says about Focus on the Family? I don't know why FOF neglected to mention how rarely sexual-orientation changes. But I think Dobson's organization should have mentioned that rarity.
FreeState, have you read the note I posted a link to the same video you posted, the one about what Spitzer says about Focus on the Family? I don't know why FOF neglected to mention how rarely sexual-orientation changes. But I think Dobson's organization should have mentioned that rarity.
CompUser
Aug 29, 11:28 AM
You can't always win :rolleyes: :cool: :D
CRT monitors also consume more power than LCDs.
CRT monitors also consume more power than LCDs.
*LTD*
Apr 9, 05:31 PM
There's a market for games with more depth that sell at higher prices, and there's a market for cheap on-the-go games that are great for downtime on the train or waiting at the airport.
The point is the line between these two camps is being blurred. It's a feature of the post-PC era. Look at what the App Store games section is evolving into - daily, monthly, yearly. It's pretty astounding. Soon, "hardcore gaming" will characterize other devices in addition to consoles. THIS is the real revolution that's going on when it comes to the gaming market. Apple is redefining it.
The point is the line between these two camps is being blurred. It's a feature of the post-PC era. Look at what the App Store games section is evolving into - daily, monthly, yearly. It's pretty astounding. Soon, "hardcore gaming" will characterize other devices in addition to consoles. THIS is the real revolution that's going on when it comes to the gaming market. Apple is redefining it.
NebulaClash
Apr 29, 07:54 AM
A reasonable question, AppleScruff. Indeed, my sample group includes staff, faculty, and students from different disciplines (including business/commerce, and engineering) at a university who use their Macs for research, graduate work, or lecture preparation; a prominent cardiologist at a large hospital; a financial advisor; professional musicians; and many others.
I am myself using a Mac in a business school seamlessly among my PC-using peers. There is nothing that they can do that I cannot - and many things I can do that they would have a difficult time doing in Windows. In fact, my colleagues have been so impressed that one has already made the switch recently, and another is preparing to switch as well. Those days of "needing to run Windows" for work are behind us.
That's been my observation in the business world as well. With projects often being Web-based now, Windows is becoming irrelevant. On one project with about twenty developers, systems architects and analysts, close to half were running Macbook Pros (no Windows installed) and doing very well. It's just not an issue for many office folks. Obviously there are some roles that still require Windows, but not as many as it used to be. The tech folks in particular seem to take great delight in moving to Macs. Times have changed.
I am myself using a Mac in a business school seamlessly among my PC-using peers. There is nothing that they can do that I cannot - and many things I can do that they would have a difficult time doing in Windows. In fact, my colleagues have been so impressed that one has already made the switch recently, and another is preparing to switch as well. Those days of "needing to run Windows" for work are behind us.
That's been my observation in the business world as well. With projects often being Web-based now, Windows is becoming irrelevant. On one project with about twenty developers, systems architects and analysts, close to half were running Macbook Pros (no Windows installed) and doing very well. It's just not an issue for many office folks. Obviously there are some roles that still require Windows, but not as many as it used to be. The tech folks in particular seem to take great delight in moving to Macs. Times have changed.
paul4339
Apr 28, 03:26 PM
...
Personally, I very VERY much hope Apple do allow the iPad to grow into a fully independent device and break it's lock down link to iTunes.
Unfortunately, seeing as the iTunes link is Apple's money making link, I cannot see them allowing this to happen for a long time, meaning it will never grow to it's full potential as a fully independent device.
If I were to speculate, I would guess that linking to the iTunes PC/Mac software is merely a transitional state (a launch pad to tap into the their existing iPod customer base)
I believe that they will eventually try sever the link from the PC/Mac iTunes client software and have all devices link over the internet back to Apple iTunes service. That is Home Base will not be your PC but rather Apple's servers, this will create more reliance/stickiness to Apple.
Where your media is stored is still up in the air (cloud?)... Cloud makes sense from a profit perspective because it creates the most stickiness, but obviously it may not appeal to many consumers.
What's certain is the trend to move to an OS where the user does not directly interact with the underlying OS. They need to access their files, media, but that can be through an application versus meddling with the underlying OS file system directly... meaning that things are trending (for the avg user) towards more of an iOS and less of an OSX.
P.
Personally, I very VERY much hope Apple do allow the iPad to grow into a fully independent device and break it's lock down link to iTunes.
Unfortunately, seeing as the iTunes link is Apple's money making link, I cannot see them allowing this to happen for a long time, meaning it will never grow to it's full potential as a fully independent device.
If I were to speculate, I would guess that linking to the iTunes PC/Mac software is merely a transitional state (a launch pad to tap into the their existing iPod customer base)
I believe that they will eventually try sever the link from the PC/Mac iTunes client software and have all devices link over the internet back to Apple iTunes service. That is Home Base will not be your PC but rather Apple's servers, this will create more reliance/stickiness to Apple.
Where your media is stored is still up in the air (cloud?)... Cloud makes sense from a profit perspective because it creates the most stickiness, but obviously it may not appeal to many consumers.
What's certain is the trend to move to an OS where the user does not directly interact with the underlying OS. They need to access their files, media, but that can be through an application versus meddling with the underlying OS file system directly... meaning that things are trending (for the avg user) towards more of an iOS and less of an OSX.
P.
alexf
Aug 29, 11:30 AM
Shame on you, Apple. Corporate greed wins again - so what else is new?
At least this report should get them moving... It took publicity to get them to finally start their iPod and expanded computer recycling program; had nobody said anything then these programs would probably not exist.
Thanks to Greenpeace, Apple will hopefully belatedly get its act together.
At least this report should get them moving... It took publicity to get them to finally start their iPod and expanded computer recycling program; had nobody said anything then these programs would probably not exist.
Thanks to Greenpeace, Apple will hopefully belatedly get its act together.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 22, 10:31 PM
lol ... there are some weird things on the US currency ... what is with the floating eye on top of a Pyramid?
Don't open that can of worms. We'll get the trilateral conspiracists all excited.
Don't open that can of worms. We'll get the trilateral conspiracists all excited.
NathanMuir
Mar 25, 02:42 PM
No argument except as to the point. This would only be a relevant criticism if I were holding Catholics responsible for an attitude held by some Christian sects, but not by Catholics themselves. On the contrary, the Catholic attitude towards homosexuality in question is common across much of Christendom.
Sigh, got a quote from the article for me?
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
Again, where is Christendom mentioned in this context in the article?
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
That's like saying all Republicans support the Tea Party. IMO it's extremely ignorant to hold the mainstream accountable for the actions of an extremist minority.
Shall I hold Obama accountable for Thomas Vail's actions and beliefs as he is self described 'to the left of Obama'? :rolleyes:
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
So we're to the point where we're going to nit pick examples?
If it makes you feel better, it was suppose to be an over-the-top example. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
Again, I could care less what they say.
Let me know when they start to act on what they say.
Again, not some extremist minority, the actual mainstream body of Catholicism.
Sigh, got a quote from the article for me?
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
Again, where is Christendom mentioned in this context in the article?
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
That's like saying all Republicans support the Tea Party. IMO it's extremely ignorant to hold the mainstream accountable for the actions of an extremist minority.
Shall I hold Obama accountable for Thomas Vail's actions and beliefs as he is self described 'to the left of Obama'? :rolleyes:
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
So we're to the point where we're going to nit pick examples?
If it makes you feel better, it was suppose to be an over-the-top example. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
Again, I could care less what they say.
Let me know when they start to act on what they say.
Again, not some extremist minority, the actual mainstream body of Catholicism.
Apple OC
Apr 24, 11:57 AM
I believe religious people like that warm fuzzy feeling they get from "the eternal afterlife" ... convinced they will be re-united with past relatives ... living worry free for eternity.
They get so giddy about it that they feel a strong need to convince others that this must be what is in store after "their time on earth"
I personally find that theory just plain ridiculous ... I honestly believe many scientists do know the answers as to how life came to be ... the reason they do not present it as fact is ... religious people would hear none of it as they are so set on this warm fuzzy feeling they get for the afterlife ... they do not want that to ever end.
To set the record straight ... I find religious people to be quite likeable and enjoy their company just fine ... just keep your wild beliefs to yourself and if you want to pray for me ... do not tell me about it ... as I find it pathetic.
They get so giddy about it that they feel a strong need to convince others that this must be what is in store after "their time on earth"
I personally find that theory just plain ridiculous ... I honestly believe many scientists do know the answers as to how life came to be ... the reason they do not present it as fact is ... religious people would hear none of it as they are so set on this warm fuzzy feeling they get for the afterlife ... they do not want that to ever end.
To set the record straight ... I find religious people to be quite likeable and enjoy their company just fine ... just keep your wild beliefs to yourself and if you want to pray for me ... do not tell me about it ... as I find it pathetic.
peharri
Sep 23, 10:25 AM
Perhaps we've just been exposed to different sources of info. I viewed the sept 12 presentation in its entirety, and have read virtually all the reports and comments on macrumors, appleinsider, think secret, engadget, the wall street journal, and maccentral, among others. It was disney chief bob iger who was quoted saying iTV had a hard drive; that was generally interpreted (except by maccentral, which took the statement literally) to mean it had some sort of storage, be it flash or a small HD, and that it would be for buffering/caching to allow streaming of huge files at relatively slow (for the purpose) wireless speeds.
I've read absolutely everything I can too and I have to disagree with you still.
It makes absolutely no sense for Bob Iger to have been told there's "some sort of storage" if this isn't storage in any conventional sense. Storage to a layman means somewhere where you store things, not something transitory used by the machine in a way you can't fathom. So, we have two factors here:
First - Bob's been talking about a hard disk. That absolutely doesn't point at a cache, it's too expensive to be a cache.
Second - Even if Bob got the technology wrong, he's been told the machine has "storage". That's not a term you generally use to mean "transitory storage for temporary objects".
The suggestion Bob's talking about a cache is being made, in my view, because people know it'll need some sort of caching to overcome 802.11/etc temporary bandwidth issues (Hmm. Kind of. You guys do know we're talking about way less bandwidth requirements than a DVD right - and that a DVD-formatted MPEG2 will transmit realtime on an 802.11g link? What's more, for 99% of Internet users, their DSL connection has less bandwidth than their wireless link, even if they're on the other side of the house with someone else's WAN in range and on the same channel. Yes, 802.11 suffers drop-outs, but we're talking about needing seconds worth of video effected, not hours) As such, you're trying to find evidence that it'll deal with caching.
YOU DON'T NEED TO. A few megabytes of RAM is enough to ensure smooth playback will happen. This is a non-problem. Everyone who's going this route is putting way too much thought into designing a solution to something that isn't hard to solve.
Nonetheless, because it's an "issue", everything is being interpreted in that light. If there's "storage", it must be because of caching! Well, in my opinion, if there's storage, it's almost certainly to do with storage. You don't need it for caching.
I'm trying to imagine a conversation with Bob Iger where the issue of flash or hard disk space for caching content to avoid 802.11 issues would come up, and where the word "storage" would be used purely in that context. It's hard. I don't see them talking about caches to Iger. It makes no sense. They might just as well talk about DCT transforms or the Quicktime API.
I'm perfectly willing to be wrong. But i don't think i am. Let's continue reading the reports and revisit this subject here in a day or two.
Sure. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong too. I'm certainly less sure of it than I am of the iPhone rumours being bunk.
Regardless of the truth, I have to say the iTV makes little sense unless, regardless of whether it contains a hard disk or not, it can stream content directly from the iTS. Without the possibility of being used as a computer-less media hub, it becomes an overly expensive and complicated solution for what could more easily be done by making a bolt-on similar to that awful TubePort concept.
I'm 99% sure the machine is intended as an independent hub that can use iTunes libraries on the same network but can also go to the iTS directly and view content straight from there (and possibly other sources, such as Google Video.) I can see why Apple would make that. I can see why it would take a $300 machine to do that and make it practical. I see the importance of the iTS and the potential dangers to it as the cellphone displaces the iPod, and Apple's need to shore it up. I can see studio executives "not getting it" with online movies if those movies can only be seen on laptops, PCs, and iPods.
If Apple does force the thing to need a computer, I think they need to come out with an 'iTunes server' box that can fufill the same role, and it has to be cheap.
I've read absolutely everything I can too and I have to disagree with you still.
It makes absolutely no sense for Bob Iger to have been told there's "some sort of storage" if this isn't storage in any conventional sense. Storage to a layman means somewhere where you store things, not something transitory used by the machine in a way you can't fathom. So, we have two factors here:
First - Bob's been talking about a hard disk. That absolutely doesn't point at a cache, it's too expensive to be a cache.
Second - Even if Bob got the technology wrong, he's been told the machine has "storage". That's not a term you generally use to mean "transitory storage for temporary objects".
The suggestion Bob's talking about a cache is being made, in my view, because people know it'll need some sort of caching to overcome 802.11/etc temporary bandwidth issues (Hmm. Kind of. You guys do know we're talking about way less bandwidth requirements than a DVD right - and that a DVD-formatted MPEG2 will transmit realtime on an 802.11g link? What's more, for 99% of Internet users, their DSL connection has less bandwidth than their wireless link, even if they're on the other side of the house with someone else's WAN in range and on the same channel. Yes, 802.11 suffers drop-outs, but we're talking about needing seconds worth of video effected, not hours) As such, you're trying to find evidence that it'll deal with caching.
YOU DON'T NEED TO. A few megabytes of RAM is enough to ensure smooth playback will happen. This is a non-problem. Everyone who's going this route is putting way too much thought into designing a solution to something that isn't hard to solve.
Nonetheless, because it's an "issue", everything is being interpreted in that light. If there's "storage", it must be because of caching! Well, in my opinion, if there's storage, it's almost certainly to do with storage. You don't need it for caching.
I'm trying to imagine a conversation with Bob Iger where the issue of flash or hard disk space for caching content to avoid 802.11 issues would come up, and where the word "storage" would be used purely in that context. It's hard. I don't see them talking about caches to Iger. It makes no sense. They might just as well talk about DCT transforms or the Quicktime API.
I'm perfectly willing to be wrong. But i don't think i am. Let's continue reading the reports and revisit this subject here in a day or two.
Sure. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong too. I'm certainly less sure of it than I am of the iPhone rumours being bunk.
Regardless of the truth, I have to say the iTV makes little sense unless, regardless of whether it contains a hard disk or not, it can stream content directly from the iTS. Without the possibility of being used as a computer-less media hub, it becomes an overly expensive and complicated solution for what could more easily be done by making a bolt-on similar to that awful TubePort concept.
I'm 99% sure the machine is intended as an independent hub that can use iTunes libraries on the same network but can also go to the iTS directly and view content straight from there (and possibly other sources, such as Google Video.) I can see why Apple would make that. I can see why it would take a $300 machine to do that and make it practical. I see the importance of the iTS and the potential dangers to it as the cellphone displaces the iPod, and Apple's need to shore it up. I can see studio executives "not getting it" with online movies if those movies can only be seen on laptops, PCs, and iPods.
If Apple does force the thing to need a computer, I think they need to come out with an 'iTunes server' box that can fufill the same role, and it has to be cheap.
KnightWRX
May 2, 11:14 AM
The fight can't be won, it's useless... there will always be those people who go, "Oh my god... random email, you need my credit card, social security number, and my youngest child? Sure thing! Here you go!"
And then freak out because their bank accounts are all empty and their kid's running off with some 40 year old. It'll never end.
That's never been a reason to give up. I was raised on Shonen Anime. I don't know the meaning of the words "giving up". ;)
And then freak out because their bank accounts are all empty and their kid's running off with some 40 year old. It'll never end.
That's never been a reason to give up. I was raised on Shonen Anime. I don't know the meaning of the words "giving up". ;)
anim8or
Apr 13, 12:46 AM
The BBC is also funded by money stolen from people as a punishment for owning a television. Let's not base conceptualizations of rational thought on their behavior.
Here's a thought...
The BBC is currently tightening it's budgets and making huge cuts to try and help keep the licence fee down. People will lose their jobs due to this fact so keep your greedy opinion to yourself.
The public demand HD television from the BBC but they certainly don't realise the cost implications.
So the licence fee us now fixed for the next 5 years thus causing cuts.
The public can't have it all!!!
And btw BBC staff get the sack immediately for failing to pay their own licence fee!
Back on point, I don't think the BBC have purchased that amount of adobe licences or hardware to go with... I would know.
Here's a thought...
The BBC is currently tightening it's budgets and making huge cuts to try and help keep the licence fee down. People will lose their jobs due to this fact so keep your greedy opinion to yourself.
The public demand HD television from the BBC but they certainly don't realise the cost implications.
So the licence fee us now fixed for the next 5 years thus causing cuts.
The public can't have it all!!!
And btw BBC staff get the sack immediately for failing to pay their own licence fee!
Back on point, I don't think the BBC have purchased that amount of adobe licences or hardware to go with... I would know.
mac jones
Mar 12, 04:45 AM
I think that the key is not to get ahead of ourselves.
IMHO, it's best to rely upon information provided from a variety of news sources and government sources and then decide for ourselves. It's too easy to jump the gun right now with regards to the nuclear plants.
Again, just my opinion.
Yes sound advice.
But the problem is, I read that there was a minor explosion, so I thought "Fine ok, no biggie". Then I see the video, and it looks like 9-11. So then, there's now a credibility problem. Fear sets in, and doubt.
You see the pattern.
IMHO, it's best to rely upon information provided from a variety of news sources and government sources and then decide for ourselves. It's too easy to jump the gun right now with regards to the nuclear plants.
Again, just my opinion.
Yes sound advice.
But the problem is, I read that there was a minor explosion, so I thought "Fine ok, no biggie". Then I see the video, and it looks like 9-11. So then, there's now a credibility problem. Fear sets in, and doubt.
You see the pattern.
dwsolberg
May 17, 03:58 PM
When Verizon offers the iPhone, I'll switch. Service is horrible in the area where I work -- so much so that on some days, I just don't get any calls and it won't allow outgoing calls for hours at a time. However, before I changed jobs, I rarely if ever had any issues with dropped calls, failed calls, or missing sound on my calls.
It's amazingly frustrating.
It's amazingly frustrating.
NathanMuir
Mar 24, 09:58 PM
From the article:
"But states can and must regulate behaviours, including various sexual behaviours," he said.
If I said this against blacks (I am of the opinion that one cannot choose their orientation any more than they can choose their race), would I not be 'persecuting' them according to that definition? What if I further said that being black was an abomination, or that being a 'practicing black' was a sin?
We'd be in a world of **** if what people said could be considered physical acts of persecution.
I suppose when someone says 'persecute' I think of actual acts of persecution. Not words that are protected, in the US at least, by the First Amendment.
Now, if the Church was crucifying these people again, well, that would be a different situation entirely.
I also agree that one cannot choose their sexuality. I've constantly and consistently voiced this opinion on this board.
1. I'm not gay. Just putting that out there. :D
Makes no difference to me.
2. I guess it is hypocritical in a sense: They hate gays for being gay and I hate bigots for being bigoted. Whether or not that puts me on the same level as them is up to you, I guess.
IMO, it does. A hypocritical statement is a hypocritical statement.
Here's another way to word what I think dscuber9000 was trying to say ...
When your beliefs about human nature are based in bigotry, then you will no longer be able to enforce laws based on those beliefs or publicly express your bigoted views without the risk of condemnation.
You are free to keep them in your thoughts and in conversation with like-minded people. However, if aired publicly, you will probably be reminded of the fact that you are a bigot and wrong.
I agree mostly.
I disagree that they are wrong, in their minds of course.
Are they wrong in your mind? Obviously. Are they wrong in my mind? Yes, because I don't agree with their views. Are they wrong in their minds? No, I don't think so if their views are sincerely held.
"But states can and must regulate behaviours, including various sexual behaviours," he said.
If I said this against blacks (I am of the opinion that one cannot choose their orientation any more than they can choose their race), would I not be 'persecuting' them according to that definition? What if I further said that being black was an abomination, or that being a 'practicing black' was a sin?
We'd be in a world of **** if what people said could be considered physical acts of persecution.
I suppose when someone says 'persecute' I think of actual acts of persecution. Not words that are protected, in the US at least, by the First Amendment.
Now, if the Church was crucifying these people again, well, that would be a different situation entirely.
I also agree that one cannot choose their sexuality. I've constantly and consistently voiced this opinion on this board.
1. I'm not gay. Just putting that out there. :D
Makes no difference to me.
2. I guess it is hypocritical in a sense: They hate gays for being gay and I hate bigots for being bigoted. Whether or not that puts me on the same level as them is up to you, I guess.
IMO, it does. A hypocritical statement is a hypocritical statement.
Here's another way to word what I think dscuber9000 was trying to say ...
When your beliefs about human nature are based in bigotry, then you will no longer be able to enforce laws based on those beliefs or publicly express your bigoted views without the risk of condemnation.
You are free to keep them in your thoughts and in conversation with like-minded people. However, if aired publicly, you will probably be reminded of the fact that you are a bigot and wrong.
I agree mostly.
I disagree that they are wrong, in their minds of course.
Are they wrong in your mind? Obviously. Are they wrong in my mind? Yes, because I don't agree with their views. Are they wrong in their minds? No, I don't think so if their views are sincerely held.
No comments:
Post a Comment