FSUSem1noles
Mar 18, 08:24 AM
Sir it is perfect.
You are paying for the same thing.
I have an unlimted plan
and I never have gone over 5gb
if one has a 2gb plan and never goes over and we both surf on the internet
Tethering whats the difference?
I have no idea why you can't understand Data=Data
Water=Water
both are pure
the logic so you understand
I drink water = use Data on the phone
I pour water over my head = Data through tethering
So its valid. Using the same amount of substance, what we pay for, to do things in different ways, what should not matter.
Amount should be the issue not how I used it.
even my 10 year old son LOL when we talked about this, he said he doesn't understand why you would pay twice for the same thing.
Obviously it escapes you.
Let's try explaining it this way...
When you subscribe to cable, you pick a package that provides you with the channels that you want. There are various packages, but ultimately it's all just video streaming over a cable (bits in this day and age, not analog)...
Based on yours and others arguements, why can't we all just pay for basic cable and get all 500+ channels plus the premium channels for free? Very simply, you're paying for a package with specific features....
With your cellular service, you chose a package that meets your needs. You have 3 options for data plans at this point, well, 4 technically...
1) Your grandfathered unlimited plan
2) 250mb
3) Data Pro 2GB
4) Data Pro 2GB + Tethering 2GB for a total of 4GB....
Tethering is not the same as using the data on your device, essentially tethering is using your phone as a modem. You data plan (which I'm assuming is either unlimited or 250mb) does not include the feature of using your phone as a modem, that's what the extra charge is for....
If you want to tether, you need to pay for the appropriate package. Just like if you want HBO, Showtime, or HDTV you need to pay for the appropriate cable package...
You are paying for the same thing.
I have an unlimted plan
and I never have gone over 5gb
if one has a 2gb plan and never goes over and we both surf on the internet
Tethering whats the difference?
I have no idea why you can't understand Data=Data
Water=Water
both are pure
the logic so you understand
I drink water = use Data on the phone
I pour water over my head = Data through tethering
So its valid. Using the same amount of substance, what we pay for, to do things in different ways, what should not matter.
Amount should be the issue not how I used it.
even my 10 year old son LOL when we talked about this, he said he doesn't understand why you would pay twice for the same thing.
Obviously it escapes you.
Let's try explaining it this way...
When you subscribe to cable, you pick a package that provides you with the channels that you want. There are various packages, but ultimately it's all just video streaming over a cable (bits in this day and age, not analog)...
Based on yours and others arguements, why can't we all just pay for basic cable and get all 500+ channels plus the premium channels for free? Very simply, you're paying for a package with specific features....
With your cellular service, you chose a package that meets your needs. You have 3 options for data plans at this point, well, 4 technically...
1) Your grandfathered unlimited plan
2) 250mb
3) Data Pro 2GB
4) Data Pro 2GB + Tethering 2GB for a total of 4GB....
Tethering is not the same as using the data on your device, essentially tethering is using your phone as a modem. You data plan (which I'm assuming is either unlimited or 250mb) does not include the feature of using your phone as a modem, that's what the extra charge is for....
If you want to tether, you need to pay for the appropriate package. Just like if you want HBO, Showtime, or HDTV you need to pay for the appropriate cable package...
PghLondon
Apr 28, 03:52 PM
Are you? Why do you think Windows 7 sells so well? All Mac users need to buy one.
Wow. Just... wow.
Wow. Just... wow.
Piggie
Apr 9, 07:30 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.
love quotes tumblr blogs. cute love quotes tumblr. cute
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.
AidenShaw
Oct 29, 12:33 PM
[QUOTE=AidenShaw;2994604]For example:
Thread_ID tid[4];
for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++)
{
tumblr love quotes
Reasons Why I Love You
cute love quotes for tumblr. i
i love you quotes tumblr
i love you quotes tumblr.
i love you quotes tumblr.
i love you quotes tumblr i
i love you quotes tumblr.
when i think of you #love
i love you quotes tumblr. sad
hairstyles i love you quotes
i love you quotes tumblr.
i love you quotes tumblr. love
images i love you quotes
i love you quotes tumblr.
Thread_ID tid[4];
for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++)
{
fpnc
Mar 18, 05:23 PM
So, if I use PyMusique, and Apple cancels my account, thereby forcing me to use some other music store, or P2P service, Apple comes out ahead how, exactly?
No one's account is getting cancelled...
Yes, Apple might cancel your account, so go ahead and be the first to try. Thus, if they have to cancel one, or ten, or a thousand accounts to protect their service you really don't think they will do that? It wouldn't be any big deal if they lose a few thousand accounts over this, since that would likely be only a few thousand dollars in revenue (if even that), less than a day or two's legal fees for a half decent lawyer.
In that case, it won't take people very long to learn that they shouldn't use such obvious methods to violate the iTunes Music Store Terms Of Service (TOS) and (possibly) the DMCA.
Note: iTunes Music Store TOS -- that legal statement that you said "Yes" to when you signed up for the iTunes service.
Everybody relax.
Exactly, that's why I said in my previous post that this doesn't really mean much.
Edit: replaced EULA with iTunes Music Store TOS.
No one's account is getting cancelled...
Yes, Apple might cancel your account, so go ahead and be the first to try. Thus, if they have to cancel one, or ten, or a thousand accounts to protect their service you really don't think they will do that? It wouldn't be any big deal if they lose a few thousand accounts over this, since that would likely be only a few thousand dollars in revenue (if even that), less than a day or two's legal fees for a half decent lawyer.
In that case, it won't take people very long to learn that they shouldn't use such obvious methods to violate the iTunes Music Store Terms Of Service (TOS) and (possibly) the DMCA.
Note: iTunes Music Store TOS -- that legal statement that you said "Yes" to when you signed up for the iTunes service.
Everybody relax.
Exactly, that's why I said in my previous post that this doesn't really mean much.
Edit: replaced EULA with iTunes Music Store TOS.
MacinDoc
Apr 12, 10:51 PM
So this is basically a jazzed up Final Cut Express and the pros have been shown the door. Why am I not shocked about this. :mad:
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
So exactly what "pro" features were removed with this release?
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
So exactly what "pro" features were removed with this release?
Th3Crow
Apr 28, 09:00 AM
Agree. Too bad the iMac never took off in the enterprise sector. I remember when I was going to the university in the 90's I saw plenty of macs all around campus. Now the times I've gone all I see are Dell's, and HP's.
I don't know what you're talking about. I work at a university, and I have watched as Macs have become more and more abundant. It used to be that one only saw Macs in niche programs, like Music or Film Studies. Now, one in three commerce and MBA students have MacBook Pros. Half of the Engineering profs have Mac laptops, and about a third of those students. Macs have exploded in the last 10 years, almost exponentially.
I don't know what you're talking about. I work at a university, and I have watched as Macs have become more and more abundant. It used to be that one only saw Macs in niche programs, like Music or Film Studies. Now, one in three commerce and MBA students have MacBook Pros. Half of the Engineering profs have Mac laptops, and about a third of those students. Macs have exploded in the last 10 years, almost exponentially.
benixau
Oct 12, 03:22 PM
If you want to get exceptional mathematical performance then why are you getting a micro computer???? I cannot out-type my computer and i cannot do mathematical functions fater than it, or even excel with all of its overhead.
BTW, my g4 is soooo slow at doing maths functions that i finished an assignment a whole 5mins ahead of a mate. In excel. these were some serious slowdown stuff, 10 cross-referenced, dependently linked, nested functions sheets. Now my mac only has 2 867s with 256ddr, his p4 2.53 with 512 couldnt beat me, WITH WIN95.
Now any more real world tests you would like????:D
BTW, my g4 is soooo slow at doing maths functions that i finished an assignment a whole 5mins ahead of a mate. In excel. these were some serious slowdown stuff, 10 cross-referenced, dependently linked, nested functions sheets. Now my mac only has 2 867s with 256ddr, his p4 2.53 with 512 couldnt beat me, WITH WIN95.
Now any more real world tests you would like????:D
gmcalpin
Apr 15, 10:31 AM
Perhaps those groups should make their own videos.
Thank you. (I mean, no ****, right?)
Thank you. (I mean, no ****, right?)
milo
Jul 13, 10:19 AM
well they will all have the same mobo, so conroe on the low end and woodcrest on the high ends isnt an option
Why do they all have to have the same mobo?
Which is why I believe that macPro's will be all dual-duals. single Woodcrest makes no sense, and splitting MacPro-lineup between Woodcrest and Conroes doesn't make much sense either. Remember: MacPro's are hi-end workstations. so dual-dual makes sense there.
Why doesn't splitting the lineup make sense? If they don't split the lineup, they're looking at bumping the price of the base model by hundreds of dollars with no benefit. Complete waste of money.
the majority of Mac desktop professional users are people who rely on Adobe for everyday work.
Do you have anything to back that up? That totally sounds like speculation.
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?
I wish apple would stop wasting money on the "kick ass case", especially since it's not that great a case aside from looking pretty. I'd love to see a budget model that was simple - why not make one more similar to a dell and keep the price more competitive? I buy it for the OS and apps, not because the plastic is shinier.
the price difference between a 2.33/2.4 conroe is going to be like 20 bucks in the volume apple is getting, maybe less, memory has about a 60 buck difference for a pair of 512 sticks so it runs up to about 30 bucks in bulk and the motherboard is going to cost about 50 more to apple, thats a total of 100 bucks which will probably be made back by saveings in overhead and support costs.
Are you comparing to woodcrest? I call BS. If you want to make that claim for real, do it with real numbers, not with ones you guesstimated.
Why do they all have to have the same mobo?
Which is why I believe that macPro's will be all dual-duals. single Woodcrest makes no sense, and splitting MacPro-lineup between Woodcrest and Conroes doesn't make much sense either. Remember: MacPro's are hi-end workstations. so dual-dual makes sense there.
Why doesn't splitting the lineup make sense? If they don't split the lineup, they're looking at bumping the price of the base model by hundreds of dollars with no benefit. Complete waste of money.
the majority of Mac desktop professional users are people who rely on Adobe for everyday work.
Do you have anything to back that up? That totally sounds like speculation.
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?
I wish apple would stop wasting money on the "kick ass case", especially since it's not that great a case aside from looking pretty. I'd love to see a budget model that was simple - why not make one more similar to a dell and keep the price more competitive? I buy it for the OS and apps, not because the plastic is shinier.
the price difference between a 2.33/2.4 conroe is going to be like 20 bucks in the volume apple is getting, maybe less, memory has about a 60 buck difference for a pair of 512 sticks so it runs up to about 30 bucks in bulk and the motherboard is going to cost about 50 more to apple, thats a total of 100 bucks which will probably be made back by saveings in overhead and support costs.
Are you comparing to woodcrest? I call BS. If you want to make that claim for real, do it with real numbers, not with ones you guesstimated.
McKellar
Oct 6, 12:44 AM
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.
I see some options here..
Maybe we'll get the dual 2.66 quad cores in one high end system. The price will go up.
Just a small point, but I think back in 2002? Apple's top end Quicksilver G4 towers were configured like this:
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.
I see some options here..
Maybe we'll get the dual 2.66 quad cores in one high end system. The price will go up.
Just a small point, but I think back in 2002? Apple's top end Quicksilver G4 towers were configured like this:
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.
dcranston
Sep 21, 04:30 AM
I'm glad to see at least a few people get it. Obviously iTV isn't for everyone. But let's take a look at the 6 most common complaints on this board:
1. I can already do this with a Mac Mini!
This may be true, but remember those are the same arguments against the iPod when it was released in 2001. You could already use a Creative MP3 player. Last I checked, the Mac Mini was still $300 more expensive, and is way overkill for a TV setup, not to mention the fact that you have to maintain a machine designed for mouse & keyboard use. Software Update comes up? Looks like you need to plug in that keyboard and mouse. Sure you can get most (if not all) of the functionality of the iTV on a Mac Mini, but who wants to spend $300 extra, lose some nice features like HDMI, and have to system adminster their living room!?
2. I don't need another box cluttering everything up.
First of all, perhaps you missed the size part of the presentation. This thing looks like a small hot plate. Second, if you don't have a need to get content from your computer to your TV, don't buy this. If you have a need, you're going to be forced to plug *something* in...
3. It doesn't have DVR functionality. I'm so mad.
I own a TiVO and I love it. And for the forseeable future, will continue to use it. But the point that needs to be reinforced over and over on these forums is that a TiVO fills a need because content is not delivered how customers want it. As this model adapts, TiVO will become irrelevant. It seems silly to try to enter this market late in the game with a product that would be comparable at best. Remember, iTunes sells content, and this market is just beginning to come out.
4. Apple wants to lock you in to their proprietary iTunes world.
While I'm sure Apple would be more than happy if you bought all your content on iTunes, I don't think anyone realistically expects that to be the case. Does anyone here think that iTV would only play iTunes content? I'll eat my left shoe if that's the case. You will still be able to subscribe to rocketboom and rip your dvds and make your own iMovies... I'm sure they'll play on iTV.
5. There's no hole that needs to be filled with this product.
Perhaps your habits are strikingly different than mine. I have an entire hard drive full of content: photos, movies, music, podcasts, and every free tv show iTunes has ever given me. But didn't I just spend $800 on my new TV in my living room? I did! I want to share this content with my friends, my family, and just have a better viewing/listening experience myself. The living room is designed for sharing and passively intaking content. The computer is designed for actively managing, organizing, and receiving. This product marries the two concepts.
6. iTunes downloads aren't economically sound vs. TV
Obviously this statement depends greatly on the user. For myself, I watch only a few TV shows. I love the Daily Show, I enjoy Monk, I recently got into 30 Days, and I enjoy the occasional mythbusters. Daily Show is $10 for 16 episodes, or about a month. TDS is often in re-runs, which I don't have to pay for. It comes out to around $70 / year. Monk has only 4-6 shows per season, and 2 seasons / year, or about $20 / year. I've watched maybe 5 episodes of 30 Days at $2 each or $10 (in the last 4 months), and I've purchased 7 mythbusters this year, or $14. So if I continue at the same rate, I'll spend $140 this year on TV shows through iTunes. My basic cable bill with Comcast was $60 / month or $720 / year. (And I know many friends who pay over $100 / month for cable, including HBO or Disney) Whoa! I cancelled Comcast and feel very liberated to only spend money on shows I find interesting. The free shows allow me to check out and be engaged by new series as well. I'm sure many of you watch much more TV than I do, but I have to say, you'll be surprised at how much crap you're paying for, and how nice it is to choose what you want only. Again, if you watch 4-6 hours of television / day (excluding old rerun shows or just turning on broadcast television), perhaps this model is not for you. Even still, multi-pass like Daily show/ colbert at $10 /month (or less) could give you 3 hours a day for $60 / month. Sweet. Time well spent :)
So is this the be-all-and-end-all of devices? No. But if I can walk into Best Buy, and walk out with a $300 no-hassle device that lets me play all of my content passively and easily in the living room, that lets me manage and choose content in an interface designed to do that very efficiently (iTunes), and without the need for any other support hardware, installations, hours of configurations, or monthly subscription, I'll be pretty happy.
1. I can already do this with a Mac Mini!
This may be true, but remember those are the same arguments against the iPod when it was released in 2001. You could already use a Creative MP3 player. Last I checked, the Mac Mini was still $300 more expensive, and is way overkill for a TV setup, not to mention the fact that you have to maintain a machine designed for mouse & keyboard use. Software Update comes up? Looks like you need to plug in that keyboard and mouse. Sure you can get most (if not all) of the functionality of the iTV on a Mac Mini, but who wants to spend $300 extra, lose some nice features like HDMI, and have to system adminster their living room!?
2. I don't need another box cluttering everything up.
First of all, perhaps you missed the size part of the presentation. This thing looks like a small hot plate. Second, if you don't have a need to get content from your computer to your TV, don't buy this. If you have a need, you're going to be forced to plug *something* in...
3. It doesn't have DVR functionality. I'm so mad.
I own a TiVO and I love it. And for the forseeable future, will continue to use it. But the point that needs to be reinforced over and over on these forums is that a TiVO fills a need because content is not delivered how customers want it. As this model adapts, TiVO will become irrelevant. It seems silly to try to enter this market late in the game with a product that would be comparable at best. Remember, iTunes sells content, and this market is just beginning to come out.
4. Apple wants to lock you in to their proprietary iTunes world.
While I'm sure Apple would be more than happy if you bought all your content on iTunes, I don't think anyone realistically expects that to be the case. Does anyone here think that iTV would only play iTunes content? I'll eat my left shoe if that's the case. You will still be able to subscribe to rocketboom and rip your dvds and make your own iMovies... I'm sure they'll play on iTV.
5. There's no hole that needs to be filled with this product.
Perhaps your habits are strikingly different than mine. I have an entire hard drive full of content: photos, movies, music, podcasts, and every free tv show iTunes has ever given me. But didn't I just spend $800 on my new TV in my living room? I did! I want to share this content with my friends, my family, and just have a better viewing/listening experience myself. The living room is designed for sharing and passively intaking content. The computer is designed for actively managing, organizing, and receiving. This product marries the two concepts.
6. iTunes downloads aren't economically sound vs. TV
Obviously this statement depends greatly on the user. For myself, I watch only a few TV shows. I love the Daily Show, I enjoy Monk, I recently got into 30 Days, and I enjoy the occasional mythbusters. Daily Show is $10 for 16 episodes, or about a month. TDS is often in re-runs, which I don't have to pay for. It comes out to around $70 / year. Monk has only 4-6 shows per season, and 2 seasons / year, or about $20 / year. I've watched maybe 5 episodes of 30 Days at $2 each or $10 (in the last 4 months), and I've purchased 7 mythbusters this year, or $14. So if I continue at the same rate, I'll spend $140 this year on TV shows through iTunes. My basic cable bill with Comcast was $60 / month or $720 / year. (And I know many friends who pay over $100 / month for cable, including HBO or Disney) Whoa! I cancelled Comcast and feel very liberated to only spend money on shows I find interesting. The free shows allow me to check out and be engaged by new series as well. I'm sure many of you watch much more TV than I do, but I have to say, you'll be surprised at how much crap you're paying for, and how nice it is to choose what you want only. Again, if you watch 4-6 hours of television / day (excluding old rerun shows or just turning on broadcast television), perhaps this model is not for you. Even still, multi-pass like Daily show/ colbert at $10 /month (or less) could give you 3 hours a day for $60 / month. Sweet. Time well spent :)
So is this the be-all-and-end-all of devices? No. But if I can walk into Best Buy, and walk out with a $300 no-hassle device that lets me play all of my content passively and easily in the living room, that lets me manage and choose content in an interface designed to do that very efficiently (iTunes), and without the need for any other support hardware, installations, hours of configurations, or monthly subscription, I'll be pretty happy.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 27, 07:44 PM
According to you and your internet sources, sexuality can be readily changed by the individual right? So why don't you try changing yours? You don't actually have to have sex with anyone, just will yourself to be attracted to someone of the same sex.
Nicolosi says that if a father and son have a normal relationship, that child will not be gay. But according to Nicolosi sexuality can be changed, so then he could become gay. So it's contradictory.
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/04/dr-nicolosi-getting-in-touch-with-his-inner-spoiled-child/
Nicolosi says that if a father and son have a normal relationship, that child will not be gay. But according to Nicolosi sexuality can be changed, so then he could become gay. So it's contradictory.
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/04/dr-nicolosi-getting-in-touch-with-his-inner-spoiled-child/
firestarter
Mar 13, 02:09 PM
But how do you proponents of nuclear power discount the very real risks it poses to mankind itself? War and terrorism especially. HUGE accident(s) waiting to happen.
If you choose not to have nuclear power, you're choosing to have oil - and all the problems that brings with it.
I can't recall a war fought over nuclear power, but we're living through one driven by our need to access cheap oil (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece).
Do you think that our heavy handed approach to Persian Gulf politics increases or decreases the threat of terrorism? Although we've been keen to see regime change in Egypt and Libya, there's no way we'll assist any sort of change in Saudi - since we need the oil. Yet most of the 9/11 hijackers were disaffected Saudi men! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks)
So I think your argument that nuclear power increases the threat of terrorism and war is naive, given that the only other option is oil - which most definitely does!
If you choose not to have nuclear power, you're choosing to have oil - and all the problems that brings with it.
I can't recall a war fought over nuclear power, but we're living through one driven by our need to access cheap oil (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece).
Do you think that our heavy handed approach to Persian Gulf politics increases or decreases the threat of terrorism? Although we've been keen to see regime change in Egypt and Libya, there's no way we'll assist any sort of change in Saudi - since we need the oil. Yet most of the 9/11 hijackers were disaffected Saudi men! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks)
So I think your argument that nuclear power increases the threat of terrorism and war is naive, given that the only other option is oil - which most definitely does!
AP_piano295
Apr 22, 08:21 PM
Nope, most people identify with atheism but when challenged to defend their points they just say "because God doesn't exist" or something along those lines. They don't try to do the simple paradox argument, or the existence of evil argument. It would therefore lead me to conclude that they're atheists because they were exposed to it in pop culture or something.
When someone tries to say there must be a God because the probability of mankind existing is x I counter it with "In a universe that is thought to be forever cycling through big bangs and big crunches eternally probability becomes meaningless. Intelligent life would eventually evolve anyway, without a divine hand to guide it.
There are arguments and counter-arguments to both camps, which is why I choose to be agnostos. In the face of a dearth of evidence it's more rational to withhold judgment than leap to an extreme position.
There is no reason to imagine that god does exist, one doesn't need to provide a reason for not believing in god.
Can you provide me an argument for why you don't believe in witches or Santa?
EDIT: It is not reasonable to imagine that something does exist just because there is no evidence to support its existence (in case this isn't obvious :/ )
When someone tries to say there must be a God because the probability of mankind existing is x I counter it with "In a universe that is thought to be forever cycling through big bangs and big crunches eternally probability becomes meaningless. Intelligent life would eventually evolve anyway, without a divine hand to guide it.
There are arguments and counter-arguments to both camps, which is why I choose to be agnostos. In the face of a dearth of evidence it's more rational to withhold judgment than leap to an extreme position.
There is no reason to imagine that god does exist, one doesn't need to provide a reason for not believing in god.
Can you provide me an argument for why you don't believe in witches or Santa?
EDIT: It is not reasonable to imagine that something does exist just because there is no evidence to support its existence (in case this isn't obvious :/ )
Dippo
Mar 18, 03:38 PM
Apple and the music industry in general will continue to rake in the $$$ regardless of this development - the real threat to the industry was always P2P, not sales.
And if the industry would sell cheaper music without DRM then P2P wouldn't be as big of a problem.
And if the industry would sell cheaper music without DRM then P2P wouldn't be as big of a problem.
megfilmworks
Oct 8, 11:02 AM
When pigs fly.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 15, 09:53 AM
I'm a straight, white, middle class kid. And even I felt that was relevant to my own life and experiences. While they specifically talk about being gay, the message of how to deal with hardships when you grow up is still relevant.
I'm in the same group and I saw the message and saw how it still relevant. I just wish they would make videos and focus on the other groups.
Thinking back to those darker times a message like this would not of sank for me because I did not fit in with the LBGT group as I am straight.
Now 10-15 years later as an adult I can see the message and agree it is relevent. But at the time not as good. Hence the reason why I feel they should also try to help out those straight kids who are for example fat and target them directly. Try to target straight kids as well.
I'm in the same group and I saw the message and saw how it still relevant. I just wish they would make videos and focus on the other groups.
Thinking back to those darker times a message like this would not of sank for me because I did not fit in with the LBGT group as I am straight.
Now 10-15 years later as an adult I can see the message and agree it is relevent. But at the time not as good. Hence the reason why I feel they should also try to help out those straight kids who are for example fat and target them directly. Try to target straight kids as well.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 04:10 PM
It isn't fallacious when the source is known to be unreliable and non representative of the field which they purport to be a part of.
But no one here has proved that Nicolosi is an unreliable representative of his field. If someone proves that Nicolosi is mistaken, maybe no one will need to attack him.
During this thread, I've just read an emotionally charged post that doesn't prove anything that the poster says about Nicolosi. I try to feel plenty of empathy. But if others keep attacking someone who disagrees with them, the attackers don't evoke my empathy. They decrease their credibility.
But no one here has proved that Nicolosi is an unreliable representative of his field. If someone proves that Nicolosi is mistaken, maybe no one will need to attack him.
During this thread, I've just read an emotionally charged post that doesn't prove anything that the poster says about Nicolosi. I try to feel plenty of empathy. But if others keep attacking someone who disagrees with them, the attackers don't evoke my empathy. They decrease their credibility.
Caliber26
Apr 15, 09:43 AM
First and foremost, I myself am a gay male in his 20's. I know all about discrimination and bullying. I've lived it first-hand, but perhaps nowhere near to the extent that it appears to be common these days, where teenagers are basically pushed to suicide in some cases. It is sad and I can barely begin to imagine their pain.
With that said, however, I'm not super excited by these campaigns that seem to be sprouting, left and right, that, more or less, encourage people to be gay/lesbian/whatever. At the end of the day that's basically the underlying message in all these videos: "Go ahead, by gay. It's perfectly fine."
Personally, I think that is a decision that one has to arrive to after much soul-searching. It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle. Let's face it, it's not easy at all for the vast majority of people who live this lifestyle, no matter how picture-perfect they want to brag about how their life is. That's 100% BULL. I have a very open-minded family (who even welcomes my other half like a son of their own) and I live in Orlando (one VERY gay city), but this alternate route is nowhere near easy or rose-colored.
So, I'm very in between. I'm all for ensuring we don't get mistreated or discriminated but I also think all these teens (the target audience of these campaigns) shouldn't be exposed to this type of encouragement either. I'm very disgusted with the GLBT community as of late, with all the bigotry and one-sided attitude. It's funny how we all want to be heard, accepted, and given a chance to express ourselves and fight for what we believe in, but the minute any group, church, or organization stands behind their beliefs, they're immediately labeled as hateful, homophobes with no hearts. Seriously, WTF? Aren't THEY entitled to fight for what THEY believe in as well? I think respect is a two-way street. We sure cry and moan and whine if we don't get any of it, but I see a lot of my own community acting quick to bad-mouth anyone that doesn't support our agenda. Maybe that's why I'm so "eh" about this whole thing.
With that said, however, I'm not super excited by these campaigns that seem to be sprouting, left and right, that, more or less, encourage people to be gay/lesbian/whatever. At the end of the day that's basically the underlying message in all these videos: "Go ahead, by gay. It's perfectly fine."
Personally, I think that is a decision that one has to arrive to after much soul-searching. It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle. Let's face it, it's not easy at all for the vast majority of people who live this lifestyle, no matter how picture-perfect they want to brag about how their life is. That's 100% BULL. I have a very open-minded family (who even welcomes my other half like a son of their own) and I live in Orlando (one VERY gay city), but this alternate route is nowhere near easy or rose-colored.
So, I'm very in between. I'm all for ensuring we don't get mistreated or discriminated but I also think all these teens (the target audience of these campaigns) shouldn't be exposed to this type of encouragement either. I'm very disgusted with the GLBT community as of late, with all the bigotry and one-sided attitude. It's funny how we all want to be heard, accepted, and given a chance to express ourselves and fight for what we believe in, but the minute any group, church, or organization stands behind their beliefs, they're immediately labeled as hateful, homophobes with no hearts. Seriously, WTF? Aren't THEY entitled to fight for what THEY believe in as well? I think respect is a two-way street. We sure cry and moan and whine if we don't get any of it, but I see a lot of my own community acting quick to bad-mouth anyone that doesn't support our agenda. Maybe that's why I'm so "eh" about this whole thing.
Peace
Sep 20, 06:09 PM
Well said. This product will NOT sell (after the initial "craze") if there is no DVR functionality. People (general mass of people not macrumors folk) are not ready to pay for individual TV shows. People love DVRs because they can record, watch later and skip commercials.
In the future when Apple has such a stronghold on the cable industry that companies are forced to move to a pay-per-channel (a-la-carte) system, then sure, but not right now.
DVR is where it is at for the moment. Apple is going to miss the boat. Apple having an iTV does not make me want to buy TV shows. It simply makes me not want to buy an iTV.
And I guess this is why Disney sold 125,000 movies the first week and Apple has sold millions of TV shows right?*
In the future when Apple has such a stronghold on the cable industry that companies are forced to move to a pay-per-channel (a-la-carte) system, then sure, but not right now.
DVR is where it is at for the moment. Apple is going to miss the boat. Apple having an iTV does not make me want to buy TV shows. It simply makes me not want to buy an iTV.
And I guess this is why Disney sold 125,000 movies the first week and Apple has sold millions of TV shows right?*
ct2k7
Apr 24, 12:43 PM
I am religious, however, I have to say there is some sort of motivation inside me to stick to my religion. I can't put my finger on what it is exactly, but there's something there. I'm always looking forward to something for some reason.
OllyW
Apr 28, 07:59 AM
Apple is already showing it's cards in melding OS X with hints of iOS.
I know and that's what's worrying. :(
I know and that's what's worrying. :(
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:32 PM
That chart isn't going to fool anyone with a brain. All it shows is what is currently implemented. It says nothing about the potential contributions of all sources, how much they cost per watt, how much pollution they produce or whether or not they are renewable. It's a colorful red herring and you know it.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close. It takes THOUSANDS of giant windmills to produce what one tiny nuclear power plant can. Can we put those in your back yard? Or how about off of your state's coast? How about solar... how long exactly does it take for a solar cell to pay for itself? The chart shows that despite heavy federal subsidies that such alternatives are STILL wholly incapable of doing the job we'd need them to do without nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. The ONLY one that has proven it's worth is hydro. That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
Yes, people have much potential for stupdity. They also have much potential to accomplish great things. Even (especially) without government holding their hands.
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
You're operating under a few false assumptions. First, bio fuels do not have to compete with food at all. Switch grass, moss, algae digesters, etc... its a quickly evolving world. Second, a great deal of our food price is wrapped up into transportation of said food. Third, using corn for fuel doesn't mean people go hungry, it only means that the price of corn goes up. Consequently prices of other goods might go up or down. What we probably agree on is that ethanol, etc. should not be subsidized.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close. It takes THOUSANDS of giant windmills to produce what one tiny nuclear power plant can. Can we put those in your back yard? Or how about off of your state's coast? How about solar... how long exactly does it take for a solar cell to pay for itself? The chart shows that despite heavy federal subsidies that such alternatives are STILL wholly incapable of doing the job we'd need them to do without nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. The ONLY one that has proven it's worth is hydro. That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
Yes, people have much potential for stupdity. They also have much potential to accomplish great things. Even (especially) without government holding their hands.
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
You're operating under a few false assumptions. First, bio fuels do not have to compete with food at all. Switch grass, moss, algae digesters, etc... its a quickly evolving world. Second, a great deal of our food price is wrapped up into transportation of said food. Third, using corn for fuel doesn't mean people go hungry, it only means that the price of corn goes up. Consequently prices of other goods might go up or down. What we probably agree on is that ethanol, etc. should not be subsidized.
No comments:
Post a Comment