Cromulent
Apr 24, 11:44 AM
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.
Not at all. I think anyone who identifies as a Christian is a Christian by definition. I just think that the lengths some goto rationalise their beliefs are ridiculous. Why bother being a Christian at all if you are going to change some of the core tenants of the belief.
I am mean I heard the other day (second hand so apply salt liberally) that some Christians are even changing the whole holy trinity thing so that it is less "way out there".
My general thinking on this is that if you can "interpret" so much of the Bible then why do you need a centralised religion at all? Why isn't anyone who believes in a god (any god) a Christian if the definition is so liberal? The only thing that seems constant in Christianity is that every denomination considers the Bible to be their holy book. Everything else, including the meaning whether literal or interpreted is completely up for grabs.
It just strikes me as odd that God would let the state of his religion fall into such disrepair.
Just my thoughts.
Perhaps you should substitute "fundamental Christian" for Christian, since that term seems to be more in line with what you've written.
Not at all. I think anyone who identifies as a Christian is a Christian by definition. I just think that the lengths some goto rationalise their beliefs are ridiculous. Why bother being a Christian at all if you are going to change some of the core tenants of the belief.
I am mean I heard the other day (second hand so apply salt liberally) that some Christians are even changing the whole holy trinity thing so that it is less "way out there".
My general thinking on this is that if you can "interpret" so much of the Bible then why do you need a centralised religion at all? Why isn't anyone who believes in a god (any god) a Christian if the definition is so liberal? The only thing that seems constant in Christianity is that every denomination considers the Bible to be their holy book. Everything else, including the meaning whether literal or interpreted is completely up for grabs.
It just strikes me as odd that God would let the state of his religion fall into such disrepair.
Just my thoughts.
Mister Snitch
Apr 9, 11:46 AM
I am firmly against poaching executives. They should always be deep-fried.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 09:47 PM
Dr. Spitzer is an intelligent, nonreligious psychiatrist who believes that some can change their sexual orientations.
sinsin07
Apr 9, 07:43 AM
Apple should be courting game developers, not their execs. These execs usually don't know much games other than to milk franchises until they're useless while the gameplay suffers.
chris paul wallpaper 2011.
Christopher Paul
Photics
Apr 9, 09:47 AM
You know how stereoscopic vision works, right?
I know how the 3DS works, but it was still fun to try. :D
Basically, the 3DS has an 800 x 240 display. It's using double the pixels to recreate the 3D effect, by creating the same image twice, but slightly adjusted to mimic three dimensions.
I think this is a horrible design choice, as the graphics looked blocky to me. I think Apple made the better decision. The extra resolution on the Retina Displays is used to make the graphics more crisp. I think it looks great! A sharper screen makes it more pleasant to use my iPhone, where the 3D effect made it more uncomfortable to use the 3DS.
Before you point out the mote in our eyes, remove the plank from your own.
If I had a plank in my eye, the 3D effect on the 3DS would be useless anyway. :p
I know how the 3DS works, but it was still fun to try. :D
Basically, the 3DS has an 800 x 240 display. It's using double the pixels to recreate the 3D effect, by creating the same image twice, but slightly adjusted to mimic three dimensions.
I think this is a horrible design choice, as the graphics looked blocky to me. I think Apple made the better decision. The extra resolution on the Retina Displays is used to make the graphics more crisp. I think it looks great! A sharper screen makes it more pleasant to use my iPhone, where the 3D effect made it more uncomfortable to use the 3DS.
Before you point out the mote in our eyes, remove the plank from your own.
If I had a plank in my eye, the 3D effect on the 3DS would be useless anyway. :p
Red-red
Apr 9, 07:25 PM
It's quite obvious what Apple are doing.
They're not going to make a console as such because it's a cumbersome solution. What they'll do is continue to improve and expand their current iOS platform and the games involved.
The "console" solution they're working on is quite simple. Airplay. If the rumours are true about Apple trying to licence the tech and if we go by the relatively cheap Apple TV iteration the future is staring you in the face.
Your iPhone, iPod or iPad will become the console or the controller in the tradition console sense. Games will be sent wirelessly without lag to the TV where others can join in with their own iOS devices. The devices can change depending on the game and the flexibility of the touch screen. Once you've finished you take your iOS device with you and carry on playing on the go.
Apple will never make a traditional games console. It isn't in their DNA to make something so vulgar. They'll simply integrate experiences into a whole. Airplay is the way they'll do it in regards to the TV.
chris paul wallpaper 2010.
Chris Paul#39;s Jordan CP3.
chris paul 2011 wallpaper.
chris paul 2011 wallpaper.
Chris Paul Jordan Shoes Pics
chris paul wallpaper 2011.
chris paul 2011 wallpaper. to
If you want a copy Chris will
They're not going to make a console as such because it's a cumbersome solution. What they'll do is continue to improve and expand their current iOS platform and the games involved.
The "console" solution they're working on is quite simple. Airplay. If the rumours are true about Apple trying to licence the tech and if we go by the relatively cheap Apple TV iteration the future is staring you in the face.
Your iPhone, iPod or iPad will become the console or the controller in the tradition console sense. Games will be sent wirelessly without lag to the TV where others can join in with their own iOS devices. The devices can change depending on the game and the flexibility of the touch screen. Once you've finished you take your iOS device with you and carry on playing on the go.
Apple will never make a traditional games console. It isn't in their DNA to make something so vulgar. They'll simply integrate experiences into a whole. Airplay is the way they'll do it in regards to the TV.
HecubusPro
Sep 12, 07:16 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
http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701.JPG
http://www.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701-thumb.JPG
Multimedia
Oct 25, 11:15 PM
It's nice that the quad cores will drop into the Mac Pro. Will they drop into the new XServe?
Say, aren't the new dual quad cores AND the new XServes coming out at almost exactly the same time?
-Mike from myallo.com (http://www.myallo.com)Yes Clovertown is pin compatible with teh XServe as well and let's hope they come out at same time. :)
Say, aren't the new dual quad cores AND the new XServes coming out at almost exactly the same time?
-Mike from myallo.com (http://www.myallo.com)Yes Clovertown is pin compatible with teh XServe as well and let's hope they come out at same time. :)
m4c1nt05h
May 6, 08:40 AM
Heck, I work in an office in the flatiron district, and on my work iPhone, it is literally an act of god if your call lasts longer than two minutes. I get slightly better times in Brooklyn (Prospect Heights), but I'm averaging about 5-6 dropped calls during the day. Sluggish data speeds in Midtown Manhattan.
Strangely, my (personal) Verizon Blackberry has never had a problem anywhere in NYC. Hmm :rolleyes:
i work in the flatiron district too. on 5th ave around 19th st.
i believe that you have issues with your iPhone but i am baffled as to why i have never experienced the amount of problems that many have here in NYC. don't get me wrong, i feel lucky i haven't had as many dropped calls.
Strangely, my (personal) Verizon Blackberry has never had a problem anywhere in NYC. Hmm :rolleyes:
i work in the flatiron district too. on 5th ave around 19th st.
i believe that you have issues with your iPhone but i am baffled as to why i have never experienced the amount of problems that many have here in NYC. don't get me wrong, i feel lucky i haven't had as many dropped calls.
Gelfin
Mar 25, 01:26 PM
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'.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
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.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
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.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
balamw
Sep 20, 07:51 PM
The average bill for a family of four would well exceed $150 a month if everything was bought from iTunes.
Where's that number coming from?
For simplicity let's make it an even $160 and assume 4 week/month. That's $40/week of TV Shows = 20 unique shows per week = ~3 episodes/day. This assumes no season/series discounts.
Don't forget that for cable/satellite, you still pay for it regardless if the show you want to watch is a rerun, so perhaps a better way to look at it is seasons of shows. The typical weekly show has 13-26 episodes/season and thus would be available at iTMS for $25-$50/year. Assuming the typical $55 cable bill you cite, this could easily add up to 12-24 seasons of shows per year (depending on # of episodes & discounts).
At $150/month you'd be able to buy 36-72 different seasons of shows from iTunes throughout the year. That's a boatload of TV.
B
Where's that number coming from?
For simplicity let's make it an even $160 and assume 4 week/month. That's $40/week of TV Shows = 20 unique shows per week = ~3 episodes/day. This assumes no season/series discounts.
Don't forget that for cable/satellite, you still pay for it regardless if the show you want to watch is a rerun, so perhaps a better way to look at it is seasons of shows. The typical weekly show has 13-26 episodes/season and thus would be available at iTMS for $25-$50/year. Assuming the typical $55 cable bill you cite, this could easily add up to 12-24 seasons of shows per year (depending on # of episodes & discounts).
At $150/month you'd be able to buy 36-72 different seasons of shows from iTunes throughout the year. That's a boatload of TV.
B
iFiend
Apr 21, 09:46 AM
It is this quote right here that separates the fan from the fanboi.
win
win
TheOrioles33
Oct 7, 08:37 PM
You guys are all forgetting. The world is going to end in 2012 so it wont matter. :)
sinsin07
Apr 9, 09:11 AM
Nope didn't escape me, I just don't agree with you or think it's worth discuss products that don't exist yet and comparing them to ones that do. That's not a "it's not fair" issue, that's a "stop suggesting a product you can't buy is better than one you can". You've not used one for any period of time that is meaningful, stop listing it as a better gaming experience.
Oscars Snubs Christopher Nolan; chris paul wallpaper 2011. selena gomez updos 2011; selena gomez updos 2011. Posted by Rumuwogety at 11:28 PM
chris paul wallpaper 2011.
chris paul 2011 wallpaper.
Chris Paul – The Guiding Light
chris paul wallpaper 2011
appleguy123
Apr 22, 09:11 PM
someone hasn't posted in that thread for 5 months ... why would people all of a sudden want to revive it ... today we have this one.
I would be willing to bet that if given time this thread will be a carbon copy of that one.
That thread should be stickied, because I can't really think of any issue(relevant to this topic) we didn't cover in it.
I would be willing to bet that if given time this thread will be a carbon copy of that one.
That thread should be stickied, because I can't really think of any issue(relevant to this topic) we didn't cover in it.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 24, 09:24 AM
If he knew Jesus would remain perfect and die in that state, it would completely defeat the purpose. Jesus' death balanced the scales that were tipped by the first man and woman sinning against God and ultimately dying. If God already planned for Jesus to succeed and return to heaven, it wouldn't have been a sacrifice.
Aduntu is the only person I know of who believes these things, and I'll wonder about them for hours. I'll write more later, I hope.
Aduntu is the only person I know of who believes these things, and I'll wonder about them for hours. I'll write more later, I hope.
Multimedia
Oct 26, 10:35 AM
Hey guys we should hold out for 128 cores. Apple will make it soon. I guess16 cores in 2007
32 cores in 2008
64 cores in 2009
128 cores in 2010
You want to wait 'til 2010 at the soonest? :rolleyes:
32 cores in 2008
64 cores in 2009
128 cores in 2010
You want to wait 'til 2010 at the soonest? :rolleyes:
inkswamp
Feb 22, 06:29 PM
What are we on now, like, the 3rd rev. of the iPhone hardware? Think back to the 3rd rev. of the iPod (I don't even think that version had a color screen yet.) How about the third rev. of OS X? Third rev. of the iMac?
I think one thing speculation like should should take into account is that Apple is incredibly aggressive about updating their products and what lies ahead can often, drastically change the playing field.
Remember the end of 2006 when the Zune was announced and everyone was running around spazzing out about how dead Apple was and all the usual Microsoft cheerleaders in the tech press were practically wetting themselves in excitement? And a mere month later, what happened? The iPhone was unveiled and all but nullified the Zune.
I think anyone engaging in this kind of speculation should keep that in mind.
I think one thing speculation like should should take into account is that Apple is incredibly aggressive about updating their products and what lies ahead can often, drastically change the playing field.
Remember the end of 2006 when the Zune was announced and everyone was running around spazzing out about how dead Apple was and all the usual Microsoft cheerleaders in the tech press were practically wetting themselves in excitement? And a mere month later, what happened? The iPhone was unveiled and all but nullified the Zune.
I think anyone engaging in this kind of speculation should keep that in mind.
ddtlm
Oct 13, 02:27 PM
Sherman:
Hmm, not sure where you got that rumor, but it reeks of uninformed "macz rulez!" PC bashing. They did not lengthen the pipeline to get the 4.7ghz P4. The P5, according to conventional wisdom, is the 90nm P4 sporting SSE3, not some totally new chip.
they could only get a 1.3Ghz P5, pretty much equal to the G4, without all those extra steps
Load of crap. Plain and simple. You know there are Pentium 3's available for sale at 1.4ghz, don't you? And lets not even contemplate for fast Athlons are clocking without the P4's super-long pipeline.
Hmm, not sure where you got that rumor, but it reeks of uninformed "macz rulez!" PC bashing. They did not lengthen the pipeline to get the 4.7ghz P4. The P5, according to conventional wisdom, is the 90nm P4 sporting SSE3, not some totally new chip.
they could only get a 1.3Ghz P5, pretty much equal to the G4, without all those extra steps
Load of crap. Plain and simple. You know there are Pentium 3's available for sale at 1.4ghz, don't you? And lets not even contemplate for fast Athlons are clocking without the P4's super-long pipeline.
cambox
Apr 13, 01:03 PM
So basically what you are saying is that you are a two bit hack and a kid with just an ounce of creativity can easily replace you because any kid can afford a $300 program, whereas a $900 one keeps them artificially out of the game.
The really ironic thing about your post is that FCP 1.0 was a cost revolution itself bringing video editing to he masses for really the first time ever, which you took advantage of. Now that Apple is doing it again and you are at risk you seemingly outraged.
Try and get your facts right before spouting off and obviously you are no pro app user. Premier was before FCP and FCP was taken from premier as the person who built FCP was the same. Premier was the first cost revolution not FCP.1 as Macs didn't sell many at that point. It stands to reason that if you dilute something in price it will then be worth less, and in business you need a premium product to keep your head above water.. Its all very well Apple releasing garage band as this is ment for kids and individuals to play around with and when or if they decide to go and pursue this for a career they can up sell them to Logic or Pro Tools etc. This is a huge step up for that route, but what I am saying is this: If everyone has the same tools then how can it be called a pro app? The new FCP is pretty much based on Imovie and for those who dont except that try and use them both together and then you will see.
Take the Red camera.. this could sell for 5k and everyone would have one, so why would you pay a daily rate of $1500 to have someone use a camera that only costs $5k? Wake up and smell the coffee but as your post indicates you dont live in the real world as companies will pay more for something they feel is better than it really is. Its simple business logic and psychology. Companies pay a premium for a professional using professional gear not an app you download from the app store.
The really ironic thing about your post is that FCP 1.0 was a cost revolution itself bringing video editing to he masses for really the first time ever, which you took advantage of. Now that Apple is doing it again and you are at risk you seemingly outraged.
Try and get your facts right before spouting off and obviously you are no pro app user. Premier was before FCP and FCP was taken from premier as the person who built FCP was the same. Premier was the first cost revolution not FCP.1 as Macs didn't sell many at that point. It stands to reason that if you dilute something in price it will then be worth less, and in business you need a premium product to keep your head above water.. Its all very well Apple releasing garage band as this is ment for kids and individuals to play around with and when or if they decide to go and pursue this for a career they can up sell them to Logic or Pro Tools etc. This is a huge step up for that route, but what I am saying is this: If everyone has the same tools then how can it be called a pro app? The new FCP is pretty much based on Imovie and for those who dont except that try and use them both together and then you will see.
Take the Red camera.. this could sell for 5k and everyone would have one, so why would you pay a daily rate of $1500 to have someone use a camera that only costs $5k? Wake up and smell the coffee but as your post indicates you dont live in the real world as companies will pay more for something they feel is better than it really is. Its simple business logic and psychology. Companies pay a premium for a professional using professional gear not an app you download from the app store.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 24, 12:05 PM
It's about power and control- nothing more.
And Fear.
And Fear.
balamw
Sep 21, 02:53 PM
iTV isn't being released until the Leopard timeframe, and Leopard has major unannounced features which we won't hear about until Macworld '07. Could it be some Mac media centre functionality as some have suggested?
We're expecting a bunch of new stuff from Apple in early 07, any of which could be critical for iTV's success. The most obvious of these is QT8, we already know it will support H.264 captions, but what else will it do? Leopard will bring Front Row to all Macs and iLife 07 will be expected around the same time. However the fact that iTV has been announced as supporting both Mac and PC makes me assume that either it will not depend on features in Leopard, or iTunes on Windows will gain some functionality to support sharing of photos.
All sounds very intriguing.
B
We're expecting a bunch of new stuff from Apple in early 07, any of which could be critical for iTV's success. The most obvious of these is QT8, we already know it will support H.264 captions, but what else will it do? Leopard will bring Front Row to all Macs and iLife 07 will be expected around the same time. However the fact that iTV has been announced as supporting both Mac and PC makes me assume that either it will not depend on features in Leopard, or iTunes on Windows will gain some functionality to support sharing of photos.
All sounds very intriguing.
B
emotion
Sep 20, 09:44 AM
Someone help me out here. Why do some of you insist on "tuners" in this type of device. What good are they for Cable and Satelite users? I mean, at best you could tune in the analog signals on a basic cable subscription, but most cable companies are all digital now and you can't tune in *hit without one of thier set-top cable boxes. Same goes for satelite.
You don't have DTT in the US do you? In the UK we do. That is why people want tuners.
You don't have DTT in the US do you? In the UK we do. That is why people want tuners.
081440
Jul 12, 02:13 AM
Oh really.
Ok, tell me what's out there that can substitute on a professional level Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator.
I am sure you don't work on the business, so you have no clue.
So were just assuming that all "pro" users depend on adobe....
What about video editors and sound people, I think they will jump right on, I know I will.
Ok, tell me what's out there that can substitute on a professional level Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator.
I am sure you don't work on the business, so you have no clue.
So were just assuming that all "pro" users depend on adobe....
What about video editors and sound people, I think they will jump right on, I know I will.