ct2k7
Apr 24, 06:23 PM
If it was the Word of God� itself that came from Mohammed's lips, then surely it would sound less like the word of a warlike, bigoted misogynist. Jesus' words are remarkably peaceful and inclusive by comparison. Paul of course, and other "spokesmen" for the organisation, added all kinds of glosses and amendments which were not part of Jesus' original message as transmitted to us.
The text cannot be right on as many scientific reasoning. I've to add that if it was so painful, and the Bible so peaceful, why do some Christians claims that the Quran had copied the Bible? Surely, the Bible would then also be as "warlike"?
It doesn't sound warlike to me, it sounds more like a set of stories, or a message. Something played on a tape.
The text cannot be right on as many scientific reasoning. I've to add that if it was so painful, and the Bible so peaceful, why do some Christians claims that the Quran had copied the Bible? Surely, the Bible would then also be as "warlike"?
It doesn't sound warlike to me, it sounds more like a set of stories, or a message. Something played on a tape.
iJohnHenry
Mar 15, 07:49 AM
true but still it's way more than is acceptable for nuclear station personal.. or otherwise they wouldn't have evacuated wouldn't they ? ;)
These people are being sacrificed, as were the workers/fireman/army at Chernobyl.
If you knew the full extent, from the get go, would you have hung around to 'man the pumps'??
These people are being sacrificed, as were the workers/fireman/army at Chernobyl.
If you knew the full extent, from the get go, would you have hung around to 'man the pumps'??
dmelgar
Jul 10, 08:09 AM
Is the battery life as bad as I've heard? I think I prefer the Incredible to the Droid X (mainly because of size), but I hate not being able to make it through the day without charging my phone.
Ya, battery life is pretty abysmal. Partly that's because its so easy to load up on power consuming background apps. They're really useful and let me do things you can't do not even on iPhone 4.
I got to the point I couldn't go anywhere without a charger.
I ended up buying an extended life battery. It does make the phone bigger and heavier but not unreasonably so. The bigger battery is awesome. I can run games or surf or navigate all day. It lasts a whole day no matter how hard I try to kill it. My iPhone 3g also would require multiple charges a day because I'm such a heavy user. I often watch 2 or more hours of video a day.
I should also mention that while reception is much better, voice quality is better on the iPhone 4 especially with the noise cancelling microphone.
Ya, battery life is pretty abysmal. Partly that's because its so easy to load up on power consuming background apps. They're really useful and let me do things you can't do not even on iPhone 4.
I got to the point I couldn't go anywhere without a charger.
I ended up buying an extended life battery. It does make the phone bigger and heavier but not unreasonably so. The bigger battery is awesome. I can run games or surf or navigate all day. It lasts a whole day no matter how hard I try to kill it. My iPhone 3g also would require multiple charges a day because I'm such a heavy user. I often watch 2 or more hours of video a day.
I should also mention that while reception is much better, voice quality is better on the iPhone 4 especially with the noise cancelling microphone.
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 05:29 PM
Bah humans in general are eejits.
Some, but otherwise I cannot fault your abuse of English. ;)
Except for you and me ...... and I'm not totally sure about you. :p
Some, but otherwise I cannot fault your abuse of English. ;)
Except for you and me ...... and I'm not totally sure about you. :p
rturner2
Apr 9, 08:59 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Why doesnt Apple allow you to plug a controller in the 30 pin adaptor? Wouldnt that be the best of both worlds?
I agree! I need some buttons. Or wireless via Bluetooth even better.
Why doesnt Apple allow you to plug a controller in the 30 pin adaptor? Wouldnt that be the best of both worlds?
I agree! I need some buttons. Or wireless via Bluetooth even better.
OllyW
Apr 28, 07:50 AM
And growth is bad?
I don't understand what you are getting at?
The figure from the year before was for Macs only. The iPad has sold very well so pushes Apple's share up when they are included but it isn't a Mac.
Mac sales were at record levels last year but if they had increased their market share by 188% then I would be more than impressed. ;)
I don't understand what you are getting at?
The figure from the year before was for Macs only. The iPad has sold very well so pushes Apple's share up when they are included but it isn't a Mac.
Mac sales were at record levels last year but if they had increased their market share by 188% then I would be more than impressed. ;)
Huntn
Mar 13, 07:18 PM
'Renewables' are hardly without issue either. To make a decent amount of power you have to do it on a massive scale. What are your thoughts on the Chinese Three Gorges Dam?
Solar plants can be put out in the scrub, they don't destroy what can be some of the most beautiful places on Earth like dams do, and have much less land impact.
Solar plants can be put out in the scrub, they don't destroy what can be some of the most beautiful places on Earth like dams do, and have much less land impact.
desdomg
Mar 18, 06:24 PM
There are two reason why this doesn't mean much. First, Apple may just cancel the accounts of anyone who tries to use PyMusique (that's covered by the EULA).
But can a user be considered to be a party to that agreement if they have not used iTunes to access the store - does the purchasing process still involve an agreement approval stage using this software? Presumably not.
But can a user be considered to be a party to that agreement if they have not used iTunes to access the store - does the purchasing process still involve an agreement approval stage using this software? Presumably not.
CalBoy
Apr 22, 10:41 PM
As I said in my first post, most atheists that I speak to don't put this much thought and care into their atheism. They just take it for granted that it won't be challenged.
I haven't seen that in my experience. Most atheists put a great deal of deliberative thought into their position. "Casual" atheists are more commonly, in my experience, agnostics with a poor vocabulary. In fact, the very idea of holding a position without substantiation is an anathema to what atheists hold above all else: the triumph of reason over "intuition."
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
Yes, you did. You lumped up three distinct theories about three different aspects of cosmic, geological, and biological history, all because they were an affront to your beliefs (or to your incredulity, whichever fits better).
"Exploding" only applies to the Big Bang Theory (and barely at that). Planetary formation and cell formation are radically different and quite complex, as is the Big Bang Theory. Trying to lump them all into one "explosion" from which your current reality directly came to be only shows your scientific illiteracy, not an inherent weakness in any one of these well-tested ideas.
I haven't seen that in my experience. Most atheists put a great deal of deliberative thought into their position. "Casual" atheists are more commonly, in my experience, agnostics with a poor vocabulary. In fact, the very idea of holding a position without substantiation is an anathema to what atheists hold above all else: the triumph of reason over "intuition."
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
Yes, you did. You lumped up three distinct theories about three different aspects of cosmic, geological, and biological history, all because they were an affront to your beliefs (or to your incredulity, whichever fits better).
"Exploding" only applies to the Big Bang Theory (and barely at that). Planetary formation and cell formation are radically different and quite complex, as is the Big Bang Theory. Trying to lump them all into one "explosion" from which your current reality directly came to be only shows your scientific illiteracy, not an inherent weakness in any one of these well-tested ideas.
rasmasyean
Mar 11, 04:27 AM
Live Coverage here...
http://www.youtube.com/aljazeeraenglish?feature=ticker
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42025198#42025198
http://www.youtube.com/aljazeeraenglish?feature=ticker
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42025198#42025198
rxse7en
Oct 12, 03:20 PM
Dammit! Dell just dropped the price of the 24" LCD today to $679. That's a hell of a deal for a 24", I think I may have to pull the trigger on one tonight as I really need some screen real estate to work in--this is getting ridiculous working on mags on 15" MBP and a craptastic 17" LCD I stole from my wife. Then, if they drop the prices on the 24s and 30s on Black Friday I'll buy another one.
Regarding the Mac Pro, unless the mobos are going to change dramatically and they intend on adding some other voodoo hardware, I think I may just buy the 2.66 quad now and upgrade the processors when necessary.
B
Regarding the Mac Pro, unless the mobos are going to change dramatically and they intend on adding some other voodoo hardware, I think I may just buy the 2.66 quad now and upgrade the processors when necessary.
B
~Shard~
Oct 31, 05:13 PM
This discussion is rather amusing in a way - "don't buy 4 cores, wait for 8 cores!" etc. - yeah, and in a few months it'll be "don't buy 8 cores, wait for 16 cores!" and then 32 cores, blah blah, ad infinitum... :p ;) :D :cool:
MacFly123
Oct 7, 06:20 PM
I hope my sarcasm meter is broken.
If it is not, comments like this are exactly what is wrong with this forum.
What does Microsoft has to do with topic?
No sarcasm at all. I know Microsoft wasn't specifically in the topic, but it relates heavily. Apple, Google, and Palm are all going to be big players in the mobile computing world. Microsoft, RIM, and Symbian are all very outdated and behind. I think it is all very interesting. I wasn't alive when the personal computing revolution went down, but this is the same type of revolution.
It is very relevant because it seems like Google is becoming the new Microsoft. There are some big differences though that make me not despise Google, such as how they are pretty open. I rejoice in Microsoft failing because the world and technology is a better place without them hindering innovation and progression with all their illegal proprietary lock-in antics they constantly shove down peoples' throats! :rolleyes: RIP Micro$oft! :p
If it is not, comments like this are exactly what is wrong with this forum.
What does Microsoft has to do with topic?
No sarcasm at all. I know Microsoft wasn't specifically in the topic, but it relates heavily. Apple, Google, and Palm are all going to be big players in the mobile computing world. Microsoft, RIM, and Symbian are all very outdated and behind. I think it is all very interesting. I wasn't alive when the personal computing revolution went down, but this is the same type of revolution.
It is very relevant because it seems like Google is becoming the new Microsoft. There are some big differences though that make me not despise Google, such as how they are pretty open. I rejoice in Microsoft failing because the world and technology is a better place without them hindering innovation and progression with all their illegal proprietary lock-in antics they constantly shove down peoples' throats! :rolleyes: RIP Micro$oft! :p
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 09:48 PM
It's a never-ending speculation.
Even if we managed to explore every square inch of time and space you can always ask, "but what if something exists beyond that?"
The question remains, what makes an atheist?
The desire to see some form of proof before believing in an extraordinary explanation.
It's pretty simple really.
My initial point was a lot of people who say they are atheists are just atheists because they think it's hip or trendy. When confronted they don't even say they'll believe in God if there's proof, they typically say there is no God, There is no way God can exist, bla bla bla...
Even if we managed to explore every square inch of time and space you can always ask, "but what if something exists beyond that?"
The question remains, what makes an atheist?
The desire to see some form of proof before believing in an extraordinary explanation.
It's pretty simple really.
My initial point was a lot of people who say they are atheists are just atheists because they think it's hip or trendy. When confronted they don't even say they'll believe in God if there's proof, they typically say there is no God, There is no way God can exist, bla bla bla...
rasmasyean
Mar 13, 10:45 PM
That's a pretty short sighted idea. Even if that were an effective way to stop a tsunami do you really think it's very wise to drop radioactive waste on all of our problems?
Well they shot a lot of nukes at Bikini Atol and that was near the islands where they can observer it. It didn't "create a tsunami" either. Maybe some small waves and such only and they fired off a lot of nukes there. Of course there will be some degree of radioactivity increase, but think about how much damage a tsunami like this does. It's a tradeoff.
Well they shot a lot of nukes at Bikini Atol and that was near the islands where they can observer it. It didn't "create a tsunami" either. Maybe some small waves and such only and they fired off a lot of nukes there. Of course there will be some degree of radioactivity increase, but think about how much damage a tsunami like this does. It's a tradeoff.
sinsin07
Apr 9, 03:03 AM
lol you are saying it like they can be strong armed. If you call paying large sums of money for exclusives "strong arming" then it's already happening in the gaming world.
Green Day + NRDC wallpaper 10
Green Day Wallpaper
the Pops - Pop Wallpaper
leekohler
Mar 25, 03:39 PM
You have to prove the rights existed in the first place otherwise I could argue the government is denying my right to drive a tank
No- you have to prove why I should be denied that right. It clearly exists.
You guys continue to ignore that marriage is in fact, a right. That has already been proven to you. And again, quit comparing us to weapons of mass destruction or murderers. I'm sick of it.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
I am not lost. I know exactly where I am. I am also not a sheep. I don't blindly follow any leader or religion.
No- you have to prove why I should be denied that right. It clearly exists.
You guys continue to ignore that marriage is in fact, a right. That has already been proven to you. And again, quit comparing us to weapons of mass destruction or murderers. I'm sick of it.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
I am not lost. I know exactly where I am. I am also not a sheep. I don't blindly follow any leader or religion.
ChrisA
Sep 26, 09:56 AM
My 2.66GHz MacPro doesn't use all four cores except on rare occassions (e.g. benchmarks, quicktime, handbrake, etc.) and even then it doesn't peg them all. What I'm most interested in is offloading OpenGL to a core, the GUI to another core, etc.
Are you trying to say that you spent to much for a computer and should have bought an iMac? What do you do with your computer. Web and email or editing HD video?
Are you trying to say that you spent to much for a computer and should have bought an iMac? What do you do with your computer. Web and email or editing HD video?
matticus008
Mar 20, 02:53 PM
The first part of you statement is not a very intelligent one. If you believe a law to be immoral or against the freedom of the people then it is your duty especially in this country to stand up against it, not cower away and create a separate place to dwell. If everyone took your stance then when major changes need to happen to our laws people would have gathered together to leave the country instead of trying to work and fix the problem and raise awareness of the problem.
Yes, they would. Most countries are started because the old one was unjust or inadequate in some regard. Working to change the law is not the same as breaking the law. You have every right to write to your Congressmen, lobby whomever you'd like, and voice your protest against the law. You do not have the right to break it.
Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.
You can think for yourself all you like, but the law is still the law. If you choose to break it, then you choose to break it, but that does NOT make the law irrelevant. You are breaking the law. That is my only point.
Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.
PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak
If you'd read more carefully, you would see that I didn't say that we aren't living in a society dominated by the strong. You would see that I was pointing out that no laws at all would make the situation even worse. The RIAA is not the government or the law. They might have successfully lobbied for it, but the law is well within their rights as the owners of the music. Take a step back and look at the rest of the law. Are murderers caught and taken away? When people steal something from you, are they not caught and not prosecuted? Do people regularly go around, shooting and stealing, with no one to stop them? The answer might be "sometimes," but with your "think for yourself attitude" the answer would be "all the time." People would do whatever they had the power to do, because there would be no consequences and no one to protect the weak at all. The main point of that part of my answer was to point out your argument failure: the fallacy of argument from ignorance (that your own evidence can be used AGAINST you, rendering it invalid).
By that logic, women would still not be able to vote. Look at other societies that do not allow people to protest "unjust" laws. Compare where they stand to where we stand. I am simply trying to take us further still down the road of freedom for all humans. Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans is a Bad Thing�. DRM, by definition, falls into this category.
That, sir, is a load of crap. The law allowed only men above 21 to vote. Women were not covered in that. Therefore, the rights of women were constricted. This is not the case. You have "fair use" laws, and DRM laws to protect fair use. The DRM laws do not narrow your scope of access to those "fair use" laws--and if you have a problem with fair use, bring it up with someone who will do something about it. You also don't live in a society where you are not allowed to protest. Sit ins and marches during the Civil Rights movement were entirely legal forms of protest for the most part. "Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans" is NOT a bad thing. Again, the reason we have society is because we have rule of law. Restrictions on actions protect the freedoms of others who cannot secure those freedoms on their own. DRM has nothing to do with "the natural association of humans," either, so I don't know where you're going here.
Again, I am bound by these laws but I do not need to AGREE with them. Do you agree with them? [That is a direct question btw.]
All actions (free or not free) require sacrifices. So what is your point?
It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not. You don't have the right to break them. I do believe in the law, I believe DRM protects artists in theory, and I do not believe that people have any excuse for breaking the law in this case. It is not a social injustice, it is not a repressive law, and it is not your natural right to do whatever you want with something that does not belong to you (the music of others). I believe that DRM is flawed because not every stereo, car, computer, music player, cell phone, PDA, internet appliance, and jukebox in existence is compatible with one another, making it difficult to listen to your music in all of those environments. But the competition is the best form of "free association" available: you're given a choice how to get your music. Not all of it works with all of your devices, but that part is up to you. If I buy a book written in Russian, it's my fault that I can't read Russian and assuming I can't translate it (which is very time consuming), I have to buy it again in English. That's the way it is, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's freedoms.
Option C (Something Different): Think for yourself and live life according to your own laws
I will take C cuz it allows for both A & B while reserving my ability to think for myself.
Neither options A nor B restrict your ability to think for yourself. What option C does is make you liable to punishment and prosecution. Live life how you feel is best, but understand that if and when you choose to break a law (we all do it, and speeding is a perfect example), you might benefit from it, but you also have to prepared to pay the fines when you get caught. Do I really care about people stealing music? No, I'm not the RIAA. Do I think it's ridiculous that people can rationalize it to the point where they think they're entitled to it, or that it's acceptable to break the law for their own convenience, or worst of all, that they're not really even breaking a law? Abso-freaking-lutely.
Yes, they would. Most countries are started because the old one was unjust or inadequate in some regard. Working to change the law is not the same as breaking the law. You have every right to write to your Congressmen, lobby whomever you'd like, and voice your protest against the law. You do not have the right to break it.
Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.
You can think for yourself all you like, but the law is still the law. If you choose to break it, then you choose to break it, but that does NOT make the law irrelevant. You are breaking the law. That is my only point.
Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.
PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak
If you'd read more carefully, you would see that I didn't say that we aren't living in a society dominated by the strong. You would see that I was pointing out that no laws at all would make the situation even worse. The RIAA is not the government or the law. They might have successfully lobbied for it, but the law is well within their rights as the owners of the music. Take a step back and look at the rest of the law. Are murderers caught and taken away? When people steal something from you, are they not caught and not prosecuted? Do people regularly go around, shooting and stealing, with no one to stop them? The answer might be "sometimes," but with your "think for yourself attitude" the answer would be "all the time." People would do whatever they had the power to do, because there would be no consequences and no one to protect the weak at all. The main point of that part of my answer was to point out your argument failure: the fallacy of argument from ignorance (that your own evidence can be used AGAINST you, rendering it invalid).
By that logic, women would still not be able to vote. Look at other societies that do not allow people to protest "unjust" laws. Compare where they stand to where we stand. I am simply trying to take us further still down the road of freedom for all humans. Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans is a Bad Thing�. DRM, by definition, falls into this category.
That, sir, is a load of crap. The law allowed only men above 21 to vote. Women were not covered in that. Therefore, the rights of women were constricted. This is not the case. You have "fair use" laws, and DRM laws to protect fair use. The DRM laws do not narrow your scope of access to those "fair use" laws--and if you have a problem with fair use, bring it up with someone who will do something about it. You also don't live in a society where you are not allowed to protest. Sit ins and marches during the Civil Rights movement were entirely legal forms of protest for the most part. "Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans" is NOT a bad thing. Again, the reason we have society is because we have rule of law. Restrictions on actions protect the freedoms of others who cannot secure those freedoms on their own. DRM has nothing to do with "the natural association of humans," either, so I don't know where you're going here.
Again, I am bound by these laws but I do not need to AGREE with them. Do you agree with them? [That is a direct question btw.]
All actions (free or not free) require sacrifices. So what is your point?
It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not. You don't have the right to break them. I do believe in the law, I believe DRM protects artists in theory, and I do not believe that people have any excuse for breaking the law in this case. It is not a social injustice, it is not a repressive law, and it is not your natural right to do whatever you want with something that does not belong to you (the music of others). I believe that DRM is flawed because not every stereo, car, computer, music player, cell phone, PDA, internet appliance, and jukebox in existence is compatible with one another, making it difficult to listen to your music in all of those environments. But the competition is the best form of "free association" available: you're given a choice how to get your music. Not all of it works with all of your devices, but that part is up to you. If I buy a book written in Russian, it's my fault that I can't read Russian and assuming I can't translate it (which is very time consuming), I have to buy it again in English. That's the way it is, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's freedoms.
Option C (Something Different): Think for yourself and live life according to your own laws
I will take C cuz it allows for both A & B while reserving my ability to think for myself.
Neither options A nor B restrict your ability to think for yourself. What option C does is make you liable to punishment and prosecution. Live life how you feel is best, but understand that if and when you choose to break a law (we all do it, and speeding is a perfect example), you might benefit from it, but you also have to prepared to pay the fines when you get caught. Do I really care about people stealing music? No, I'm not the RIAA. Do I think it's ridiculous that people can rationalize it to the point where they think they're entitled to it, or that it's acceptable to break the law for their own convenience, or worst of all, that they're not really even breaking a law? Abso-freaking-lutely.
peharri
Sep 24, 05:08 PM
The iTV most definitely requires a computer.
There's no evidence of this. Nothing has been said suggesting anything of the sort.
The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video.
No, it isn't. It's not remotely like an Airport Extreme.
It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV.
This is not the case. There's only been one demonstration so far, and the controlling part was the iTV, not the server.
The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
What was demonstrated was a box that can view iTunes libraries on the local network. There's no evidence it "controls" the source machine beyond telling it to send a stream (like any iTunes client.)
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
The reported and demo'd features are of a standalone box that can access iTunes libraries. The box is reported to have storage (which is what this entire thread is about!)
It most certainly is not of some souped up Airport Extreme. That was what was widely rumoured before the Showtime presentation, and it turned out to be completely false. Whatever the debate of the precise capabilities of the iTV may be, the device demo'd couldn't be further from being an Airport Extreme if it tried.
There's no evidence of this. Nothing has been said suggesting anything of the sort.
The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video.
No, it isn't. It's not remotely like an Airport Extreme.
It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV.
This is not the case. There's only been one demonstration so far, and the controlling part was the iTV, not the server.
The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
What was demonstrated was a box that can view iTunes libraries on the local network. There's no evidence it "controls" the source machine beyond telling it to send a stream (like any iTunes client.)
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
The reported and demo'd features are of a standalone box that can access iTunes libraries. The box is reported to have storage (which is what this entire thread is about!)
It most certainly is not of some souped up Airport Extreme. That was what was widely rumoured before the Showtime presentation, and it turned out to be completely false. Whatever the debate of the precise capabilities of the iTV may be, the device demo'd couldn't be further from being an Airport Extreme if it tried.
ksz
Oct 12, 04:52 PM
Here ya go: http://forums.us.dell.com/supportforums/board/message?board.id=creativecontest&message.id=143&l=en&s=dhs
This is a really good deal. Ordered mine a few minutes ago for $1350+tax. Will use it with my home-built PC (nVidia 7800 GTX with dual-link DVI) until the next-gen Mac Pro is released.
This is a really good deal. Ordered mine a few minutes ago for $1350+tax. Will use it with my home-built PC (nVidia 7800 GTX with dual-link DVI) until the next-gen Mac Pro is released.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 03:52 PM
Even if, which I doubt, your theory of water vapour is correct - that does not give us the excuse to pollute this planet as we see fit. All industry and humans must clean up their act - literally.
Some of what I said was theory, but every factual statement I gave was just that - factual. No climatologist would argue with any of the facts I gave...it's just that, as with statistics, the interpretation of the fact differs.
And no, we have no excuse to pollute the planet....human actions proven to disrupt the environment (deforestation, toxic runoff, killing off animal species, etc.) should be stopped whenever possible. We are responsible for taking care of this planet, but at the same time we have to realize when advancements have been made. Our cars, boats, factories and city skies are infinitely more environmentally-friendly than they used to be, but if 30 years of industrial and personal "clean-up" have done nothing to stem global warming, it's only natural to wonder if maybe it's not us causing the problem.
In other words, if we've streamlined our machinery to be 99% more efficient, is it worth it to spend the billions of dollars to get rid of that last 1% if our original effort has done nothing to the greenhouse effect?
Some of what I said was theory, but every factual statement I gave was just that - factual. No climatologist would argue with any of the facts I gave...it's just that, as with statistics, the interpretation of the fact differs.
And no, we have no excuse to pollute the planet....human actions proven to disrupt the environment (deforestation, toxic runoff, killing off animal species, etc.) should be stopped whenever possible. We are responsible for taking care of this planet, but at the same time we have to realize when advancements have been made. Our cars, boats, factories and city skies are infinitely more environmentally-friendly than they used to be, but if 30 years of industrial and personal "clean-up" have done nothing to stem global warming, it's only natural to wonder if maybe it's not us causing the problem.
In other words, if we've streamlined our machinery to be 99% more efficient, is it worth it to spend the billions of dollars to get rid of that last 1% if our original effort has done nothing to the greenhouse effect?
beniscool
Apr 19, 09:00 PM
What if I just want my top 10 favorites? In Windows I just drag the icon (of whatever I want) to the Start button, then drop it into the list of my favorites (I'm not sure of the actual term for this). Can this be done on a Mac?
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
The dock
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
The dock
skunk
Mar 25, 06:59 PM
I try to, but public service keeps dragging me away.I thought this was your idea of public service.
And it's getting damn annoying.You're not wrong.
And it's getting damn annoying.You're not wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment