OllyW
Apr 21, 03:06 AM
Its amazing how all those "smart" Android users are still poorer than the average iOS user, and spend less than the average iOS user.
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
At least they don't have to worry about other people thinking they are smug arrogant tosspots. :rolleyes:
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
At least they don't have to worry about other people thinking they are smug arrogant tosspots. :rolleyes:
![eminem love you more lyrics. Eminem [Verse 1]: I want you](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsdTLAGF-oaoR8LwMPz5JMrYfpc1liY8__-itDHBN_ux7fWCGdNuZpTIKInbGdxHEWPrMyqfI6aM6BFx3RMuGrprQYLiEMk-5BKeytasIC-yA2BG46056xF8bDq8_zwr1GAryaWd04lNI/s400/eminem-refill1.jpg "Eminem [Verse 1]: I want you")
Howdr
Mar 18, 08:35 AM
OMG you still done get it:
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....
No no, as long as you abide by the amount of data in the plan it should not matter how you use it.
You can't steal what you paid for, you buy 100 cable channels that is what you get and use
You buy 2gb and use 1gb you have used 1gb no matter if its on the phone or laptop. 1gb= 1gb
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....
Ok? the tethering give you 2gb for the money I see that and I have read the tethering and Data pro are added to total 4gb for the charge. So you and At&t prove my point thank you! Data=Data, they add it together and it is the same.
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...
LOL no its the same use of Data as on the phone.
Tethering does not do something different to AT&t, its just using Data
you may not understand how Data is used from the source but I assure you there is no difference to AT&t when you tether and when you surf YOUTUBE on the phone.
To At&t Data=Data and its been their words not mine every time its printed by them.
So far I have not seen an argument that proves otherwise.:rolleyes:
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....
No no, as long as you abide by the amount of data in the plan it should not matter how you use it.
You can't steal what you paid for, you buy 100 cable channels that is what you get and use
You buy 2gb and use 1gb you have used 1gb no matter if its on the phone or laptop. 1gb= 1gb
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....
Ok? the tethering give you 2gb for the money I see that and I have read the tethering and Data pro are added to total 4gb for the charge. So you and At&t prove my point thank you! Data=Data, they add it together and it is the same.
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...
LOL no its the same use of Data as on the phone.
Tethering does not do something different to AT&t, its just using Data
you may not understand how Data is used from the source but I assure you there is no difference to AT&t when you tether and when you surf YOUTUBE on the phone.
To At&t Data=Data and its been their words not mine every time its printed by them.
So far I have not seen an argument that proves otherwise.:rolleyes:
Hellhammer
Mar 13, 08:08 AM
What is the alternative to nuclear power? These green ways of producing electricity cost a lot more and what I've heard, they can't provide enough power. Plus they don't work everywhere (not enough sun or wind in here for example).
Whether it's a good move to build nuclear plants near tectonic plate joints, that's another question. We don't have seismic activity in here so such natural catastrophes aren't a concern.
Whether it's a good move to build nuclear plants near tectonic plate joints, that's another question. We don't have seismic activity in here so such natural catastrophes aren't a concern.
chrono1081
May 2, 11:52 AM
Bigger, most Windows PC have anti-virus, can you say the same for Macs?
Except antivirus doesn't usually catch things like this, neither does anti-spyware since it acts like a legit program.
I fix windows machines and servers for a living an unfortunately a majority of my week is spent removing said malware from windows machines.
Except antivirus doesn't usually catch things like this, neither does anti-spyware since it acts like a legit program.
I fix windows machines and servers for a living an unfortunately a majority of my week is spent removing said malware from windows machines.
Howdr
Mar 18, 12:22 PM
You could also man up and admit that at the heart of your argument - you don't like that you signed a contract that up until now - was just fine and dandy. Now that ATT wants to actually hold you and others responsible for an element of that contract that you think you are entitled to - you want to cry "illegal."
Good luck. ATT would be better off losing you as a customer rather than dealing with the, no doubt, obnoxious posts and calls into CSRs you will no doubt make.
of Love+you+more+lyrics
To Love You More Lyrics - Page
Eminem I Love You More
( 03 ) I Love You More
to love you more lyrics.
![eminem love you more lyrics. The Way I Am Lyrics - [Eminem]](http://www.prohiphop.com/images/graf/eminemautobiography.jpg "The Way I Am Lyrics - [Eminem]")
The Way I Am Lyrics - [Eminem]
love you more lyrics.
See more eminem lyrics videos
Eminem-Love the Way You Lie
Rihanna (Lyrics) (Re Eminem
%2BLyrics.jpg "Eminem - Love The Way You Lie")
Eminem - Love The Way You Lie
Eminem. “Love the Way You Lie”
Ill be waiting for you more Inside my life youve givin me the best in straight from Didlove you newest lyrics you can apr From the lab ep album now that i
Eminem Love The Way You Lie
Good luck. ATT would be better off losing you as a customer rather than dealing with the, no doubt, obnoxious posts and calls into CSRs you will no doubt make.
Huntn
Mar 13, 07:40 AM
Washington Post 12Mar2011 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/12/AR2011031205493.html?hpid=topnews):
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said radiation at the reactor exceeded legal limits and that it was "highly possible" a partial meltdown was underway.
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said radiation at the reactor exceeded legal limits and that it was "highly possible" a partial meltdown was underway.
Shivetya
Apr 15, 11:49 AM
I have a couple problems with this approach. There's so much attention brought to this issue of specifically gay bullying that it's hard to see this outside of the framework of identity politics.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Because some groups want to convince the world they are better victims than other groups. Because some groups see more importance in who you are than what you suffered.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Because some groups want to convince the world they are better victims than other groups. Because some groups see more importance in who you are than what you suffered.
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
jaduffy108
Aug 29, 01:01 PM
It's a very sad reality indeed.
### imo, a "reality" of Apple's choosing. They should be a leader in this area! No excuses. Period. Dell? that's embarassing.
### imo, a "reality" of Apple's choosing. They should be a leader in this area! No excuses. Period. Dell? that's embarassing.
d0minick
Mar 18, 05:59 AM
Option 3; STOP trying to cheat the system, and START using your iDevice the way the manufacturer designed it and the way your carrier supports it. (Is it unfair? YES! Are all of us iPhone users getting hosed, even though there's now two carriers? YES)
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
LOL Holier then thou.
Hey, some sheep aren't meant to stray from the herd. Don't knock the others.
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
LOL Holier then thou.
Hey, some sheep aren't meant to stray from the herd. Don't knock the others.
flopticalcube
Apr 15, 12:28 PM
I agree with WestonHarvey1. The lifestyle of the Catholic and that of a member of the LGBT community is not easily reconcilable, if at all. Then again, it's not reconconcilable with an ever increasing portion of the population so I feel the problem lies with the church, and not the community at large. Shame how such a noble project has been pulled OT by religion but it does tend to do sh:t like this.
blackpond
May 2, 09:29 AM
People use Safari? ... :confused:
carmenodie
Oct 7, 12:02 PM
You notice that Google's stock is way up! As of this writing it is now trading at $507.29 a share and it is 10-7-09 and 12:56pm. Look, Android is going into all these phones like a who** not b/c it is some supper grand OS but to get Google's share prices up. And believe me it will be ad laced up the a**.
So, is this god news for consumers? Hell no!
It is good news for wall street and stock holders.
Android=lots of ads to plague you with.
So, is this god news for consumers? Hell no!
It is good news for wall street and stock holders.
Android=lots of ads to plague you with.
Multimedia
Jul 13, 06:10 AM
I've been wondering about this too. Surely they have the source code (or most of it) written in a high level language, right? If I'm not totally mistaken, there shouldn't be that much more work involved than a re-compilation for x86. Even if some filters or other stuff are hand coded in assembler, they already have that code in x86-assembler in the Windows version.Adobe made a strategic decision to go Universal with the CS3 Suite next year and meanwhile not to divert work to Universalize the CS2 Suite. If you need Adobe stuff all the time, just get a G5 Quad and you will be happy as a clam. It's still going to be the second fastest Mac after Mac Pros are out. :)
Pale Rider
Aug 29, 02:52 PM
Notice that one of the things that Greenpeace ranked companies on is the precationary principle: "The company fails to embrace the precautionary principle." I for one would prefer that my technology companies not embrace the Luddite, er, precautionary principle. As principles go, it is philosophically bankrupt, and not a scientifically credible basis for making technological and sociological decisions.
As for the anti-American sentiment out there, please, that bigotry is almost as productive as the fanatacism you purport to oppose. Greenpeace wears no halo; neither do corporations. Neither does the French government that used the South Pacific for nuclear testing; neither does the German government, nor the Chinese pollution complex. I want Apple to be even better at what it does and for which it has been lauded--longer life cycle products and aggressive recycling programs (notwithstanding what Greenpeace said). But like many here, I find the notion that Dell is more "green" than Apple so inherently laughable--look at why Greenpeace says Dell is more green, not because of reality, but because of how Dell interacted with them--that I cannot take this report seriously. "Greenpeace doesn't like Apple's attitude" might as well have been the report title. And on that note, I probably feel better about Apple accordingly.
As for the anti-American sentiment out there, please, that bigotry is almost as productive as the fanatacism you purport to oppose. Greenpeace wears no halo; neither do corporations. Neither does the French government that used the South Pacific for nuclear testing; neither does the German government, nor the Chinese pollution complex. I want Apple to be even better at what it does and for which it has been lauded--longer life cycle products and aggressive recycling programs (notwithstanding what Greenpeace said). But like many here, I find the notion that Dell is more "green" than Apple so inherently laughable--look at why Greenpeace says Dell is more green, not because of reality, but because of how Dell interacted with them--that I cannot take this report seriously. "Greenpeace doesn't like Apple's attitude" might as well have been the report title. And on that note, I probably feel better about Apple accordingly.
2ndPath
Sep 26, 03:13 AM
I wonder whether Apple will keep the two Woodcrest quad-core configuration, or whether they introduce a new single CPU quad-core one for the new low end. When Apple switched to the dual-core G5, they replaced the dual CPU lower end systems by single CPU dual-core systems, which was suspected to reduce the building cost of the system.
geofftay
Mar 18, 08:26 PM
Don't care how many times this has been regurgitated...
I paid money for the file. I dont care about the license. I dont own my books, my software, my music, my life, my anything if I sit back and shut up. So the only issue here that bothers me is that short term, this could affect how I get my music and what I pay for it. Long term? It wont make a damn bit of difference... RIAA will eventually lose this war.
I paid money for the file. I dont care about the license. I dont own my books, my software, my music, my life, my anything if I sit back and shut up. So the only issue here that bothers me is that short term, this could affect how I get my music and what I pay for it. Long term? It wont make a damn bit of difference... RIAA will eventually lose this war.
iphone3gs16gb
Apr 23, 10:46 PM
Because we are smart intellectual people who believe in science and it's God given power :)
vincenz
Mar 18, 08:16 AM
I'm just surprised they haven't done this sooner :eek:
CorvusCamenarum
Mar 25, 02:36 PM
On the contrary, our own Supreme Court has held it to be a fundamental right, and the United States through its treaty making power has also held it as a right through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 16).
Got a source for that?
Is voting also a privilege?
Of course not, but then again, I've never needed a license to vote. Have you?
The fact that something is licensed does not change it from a right to a privilege.
If it were a right, one would not need a license in the first place. A license implies the privilege it confers can be revoked at any time, such as driving, operating a boat, driving a forklift, operating a vehicle with air brakes, hunting, fishing, carrying a concealed weapon, owning a weapon (in your country), or having a television (again in your country). Obviously, not an exhaustive list. Conversely, I do not require a license to speak my mind in public, worship as I choose, have counsel present in the face of criminal proceedings, etc. Similarly, the state can decide not to issue me a license if I do not meet the criteria for obtaining one, and marriage falls under this purview.
Got a source for that?
Is voting also a privilege?
Of course not, but then again, I've never needed a license to vote. Have you?
The fact that something is licensed does not change it from a right to a privilege.
If it were a right, one would not need a license in the first place. A license implies the privilege it confers can be revoked at any time, such as driving, operating a boat, driving a forklift, operating a vehicle with air brakes, hunting, fishing, carrying a concealed weapon, owning a weapon (in your country), or having a television (again in your country). Obviously, not an exhaustive list. Conversely, I do not require a license to speak my mind in public, worship as I choose, have counsel present in the face of criminal proceedings, etc. Similarly, the state can decide not to issue me a license if I do not meet the criteria for obtaining one, and marriage falls under this purview.
jiggie2g
Jul 12, 04:34 PM
In A Word NO. There is nothing complicated about understanding Intel's Processor line. Only lazy consumers unwilling to read anything.
Yes Mulitmedia these are the same morons with too much money and too little sense , These are the same people who are saying ..ohhh why can't Conroe go into an iMac , but i want a Woodcrest , hey I don't care if Merom is Pin compatible can't they go with Conroe for it's better perfromance ..lol
What a bunch of whiny daddy's boys , no sense at all they just obey the all mighty Stevie Jobs when he lies about how the new MacPro is THE FASTEST PEECEE IN THE WORRRRLD:p
Yes Mulitmedia these are the same morons with too much money and too little sense , These are the same people who are saying ..ohhh why can't Conroe go into an iMac , but i want a Woodcrest , hey I don't care if Merom is Pin compatible can't they go with Conroe for it's better perfromance ..lol
What a bunch of whiny daddy's boys , no sense at all they just obey the all mighty Stevie Jobs when he lies about how the new MacPro is THE FASTEST PEECEE IN THE WORRRRLD:p
Sydde
Apr 26, 11:53 PM
Huntn, please show me some evidence for what you're saying. Then I'll tell you what I think of it. Meanwhile, I should admit that the Bible's original manuscripts no longer exist, and there are copyists' mistakes in the existing copies. There are mistranslations in at least some Bible translations. Take Matthew 24:24 in the King James Version. It's ungrammatical. But I still need you to give us some evidence that, for example, some tendentious ancient people tampered with Bible passages.
Tampering with the text is not, per se, the real issue. What Huntn us probably referring to is the selective composition of the whole. The Protestant bible typically has 66 books. Some other versions can have as many as 81 (see "biblical apocrypha (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha)"). Then there are fascinating tales such as the Gospel According to Judas Iscariot (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas) and the Gospel of Barnabas (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas), which relate a rather different account of the last days of Jesus.
Finally, one cannot ignore the Nag Hammadi texts (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library) nor the books summarily left out (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha) of the new testament.
So what? So someone had to decide which books belonged in there and which did not. The choice was most certainly partly arbitrary and partly political. I mean, even if you could reasonably claim divine inspiration for the authorship, can you also claim divine guidance for the compilation? Especially considering that various Christian sects cannot agree on even that.
Tampering with the text is not, per se, the real issue. What Huntn us probably referring to is the selective composition of the whole. The Protestant bible typically has 66 books. Some other versions can have as many as 81 (see "biblical apocrypha (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha)"). Then there are fascinating tales such as the Gospel According to Judas Iscariot (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas) and the Gospel of Barnabas (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas), which relate a rather different account of the last days of Jesus.
Finally, one cannot ignore the Nag Hammadi texts (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library) nor the books summarily left out (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha) of the new testament.
So what? So someone had to decide which books belonged in there and which did not. The choice was most certainly partly arbitrary and partly political. I mean, even if you could reasonably claim divine inspiration for the authorship, can you also claim divine guidance for the compilation? Especially considering that various Christian sects cannot agree on even that.
eah2119
Apr 28, 04:52 PM
The iPad now is definitely just a mobile device. It can't do a lot of things a laptop computer can. Apple's going to have to make some changes to the iPad to give it the title "tablet PC" along with the other "tablet PCs" that think they are "tablet PCs." They will have to make it a little less like iOS and more like Mac OS X. It's just too limited. It's not a computer. It's just a larger iPod Touch.
javajedi
Oct 8, 04:33 PM
I'm actually not a Windows developer (hence my nick :) ) but from what I understand you can do most of your fp stuff using the P4's vector engine. I also wanted to add to my first post that in integer ops, the G4 only achives clock parity. It goes without saying that the massively clocked P4's will well outperform a G4 in integer.
No comments:
Post a Comment