brepublican
Aug 29, 11:07 AM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
Yeah its a business. But you gotta give back to the community. Whats the point in reaping huge profits off consumers then destroying the earth? It's not that drammatic, but if every company were like Apple, it'd definitely not bode well for the environment :mad:
Yeah its a business. But you gotta give back to the community. Whats the point in reaping huge profits off consumers then destroying the earth? It's not that drammatic, but if every company were like Apple, it'd definitely not bode well for the environment :mad:
btrav13
Jun 12, 10:02 AM
However, you are unfortunately stuck in the position that if you buy the device, you are buying ATT service. As long as this continues to happen, then Apple really doesn't have any incentive to move it to other carriers. I mean, technically they do, but if there are service complaints, yet the very same people who complain still continue to purchase the new one ever year, then that's not sending a very strong message, in my opinion.
EagerDragon
Jul 12, 12:20 PM
How much hotter would a MacBook Pro be with a single Woodcrest?
Why not Woodcrest for entire PRO line?
Why not Woodcrest for entire PRO line?
matticus008
Mar 20, 10:49 PM
I do agree that it is effectively the break of a promise. Hell, it's the breaking of a contract... which is certainly quite wrong. But what if you believe the original terms and conditions to be morally wrong in themselves?
Yes, yes, I know. Don't use the software, but people do, and people will. In the scheme of things, considering all alternatives, I really can't see such strong objection. For reasons noted in my first post, the software will likely only be picked up by a small number of tech-savvy, yet honest users - and that's the thing. This is a very small market, quite unlikely to be distributing these songs over p2p - which is (correct me if I'm wrong) the main reason for DRM in the first place?
Trying to stay pragmatic here without advocating anarchy. It's not working.
Yours is a noble attempt at being pragmatic. It's very hard to be as liberal as possible and still maintain order :). You're right, people will use the software. It will allow them to play music on devices that don't support FairPlay or the AAC file format without them having to take extra steps to do everything in a compliant manner. It's a pain to have to buy a song, download it, burn it to a CD from iTunes, and reimport it. But each of those steps are allowed by iTunes TOS, whereas this software is specifically not allowed. They probably don't want to put iTunes music on P2P services, since they paid for it. But if Apple allows this software to go on, then it just takes one person to buy the song and redistribute it. At least the current system requires you to take ten minutes of your time and a CD to pirate from iTunes. It's not that big of a roadblock, and for the very small market you suggest, wanting just for their music to work on their other players, it's a small price to ask to prevent sales-damaging (as opposed to personal use only) piracy.
If you believe the terms and conditions to be morally wrong as they were presented to you, you should not have accepted them, so it's still not right to violate them. You weren't forced into accepting them. You chose to, and you chose them knowing the limitations. There's no cause for illegal action. Of course I don't mean "you" as in you particularly, but in the general sense for this post.
Yes, yes, I know. Don't use the software, but people do, and people will. In the scheme of things, considering all alternatives, I really can't see such strong objection. For reasons noted in my first post, the software will likely only be picked up by a small number of tech-savvy, yet honest users - and that's the thing. This is a very small market, quite unlikely to be distributing these songs over p2p - which is (correct me if I'm wrong) the main reason for DRM in the first place?
Trying to stay pragmatic here without advocating anarchy. It's not working.
Yours is a noble attempt at being pragmatic. It's very hard to be as liberal as possible and still maintain order :). You're right, people will use the software. It will allow them to play music on devices that don't support FairPlay or the AAC file format without them having to take extra steps to do everything in a compliant manner. It's a pain to have to buy a song, download it, burn it to a CD from iTunes, and reimport it. But each of those steps are allowed by iTunes TOS, whereas this software is specifically not allowed. They probably don't want to put iTunes music on P2P services, since they paid for it. But if Apple allows this software to go on, then it just takes one person to buy the song and redistribute it. At least the current system requires you to take ten minutes of your time and a CD to pirate from iTunes. It's not that big of a roadblock, and for the very small market you suggest, wanting just for their music to work on their other players, it's a small price to ask to prevent sales-damaging (as opposed to personal use only) piracy.
If you believe the terms and conditions to be morally wrong as they were presented to you, you should not have accepted them, so it's still not right to violate them. You weren't forced into accepting them. You chose to, and you chose them knowing the limitations. There's no cause for illegal action. Of course I don't mean "you" as in you particularly, but in the general sense for this post.
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.
AppliedVisual
Oct 6, 04:59 PM
OK, it seems like Woodcrest was officially unveiled by Intel on July 27 and the new Mac Pros were available for purchase (same day they were announced) on August 7.
So if it goes like that, we could see these things as early as late November, right? Just doing some wishful thinking! :)
Ugh, it's gonna be hard waiting until December or January. I just hope the price won't be so much higher than what we see now.
It's difficult to say. Intel has been making engineering samples of Cloverton available to companies like Apple and Dell and motherboard makers for a while now. From the time Intel formally announces availability to the time we can buy a Cloverton Mac Pro should be a matter of days, maybe a week or two. Now, if there are problems with cooling or voltage or BIOS/ROM incompatibilities/bugs to work out, then it could be longer. I'm pretty confident that it won't be a delay anywhere near as long as the Merom Macbook[Pro] delay.
2.66GHz (or 3GHz? maybe?) Cloverton Mac Pro for me... :D Hopefully they have a better graphics card offering than the current choices too.
So if it goes like that, we could see these things as early as late November, right? Just doing some wishful thinking! :)
Ugh, it's gonna be hard waiting until December or January. I just hope the price won't be so much higher than what we see now.
It's difficult to say. Intel has been making engineering samples of Cloverton available to companies like Apple and Dell and motherboard makers for a while now. From the time Intel formally announces availability to the time we can buy a Cloverton Mac Pro should be a matter of days, maybe a week or two. Now, if there are problems with cooling or voltage or BIOS/ROM incompatibilities/bugs to work out, then it could be longer. I'm pretty confident that it won't be a delay anywhere near as long as the Merom Macbook[Pro] delay.
2.66GHz (or 3GHz? maybe?) Cloverton Mac Pro for me... :D Hopefully they have a better graphics card offering than the current choices too.
ender land
Apr 23, 09:15 PM
Why is the PRSI attitude 'religion is wrong'?
I have no idea. I'm not one of those perpetuating that attitude. All I know is that this is the attitude, regardless as to the "why" it exists. Maybe because the majority of atheists tend to have an attitude of more "religion sucks, I'm atheist" whereas religious people do not have an "atheism sucks, I'm theistic" attitude for the most part.
If these forums reflected US religious belief, atheist opinions would be vastly outnumbered by theists, wouldn't they? Why is this?
Honestly, if you really believe in Christianity or any other religion you won't waste your time posting on some internet forum under anonymous names discussing things which ultimately will benefit no one save providing some cheap entertainment. This is because people who are religious more often think their life has meaning outside what meaning they create for it. As such, self indulgence for the sake of entertainment is not normally valued in religion.
In general the internet is also ripe with issues that are not desired for nearly all religions (porn, suggestive pictures, swearing, etc). This is a key part of why I actually have avatars disabled on all forums I go to, many people like using really suggestive images as avatars. Some forums I will even disable images in posts.
Time spent on forums rarely results in any sort of benefit other than cheap entertainment. Granted, you can make friendships from it and even meet people you previously knew online (I'm guilty of this :eek:), but in general, the overwhelming majority of the time spent is "wasted." A single face to face meeting with a friend provides more long term value than hours upon hours of reading forums and posting.
The atheists I have known over the years tend to be far more bitter towards the world than theists. This does NOT mean everyone here is bitter towards the world. But it is a general trend I have noticed with the many atheists I have interacted with over the years and a trait I once shared. Bitterness tends to make you a loner. Loners seem to gravitate towards the internet because it is a place people accept you, at least somewhat, regardless of whatever reasons you are that way. I am in many regards a loner; I have probably 20k or 25k posts on forums over the past years as a result. I suspect this is also true of the majority of posters here, deep down, we do not naturally form relationships quickly and it's way easier to get cheap social interaction online than in the dreaded Real Life.
I guess the overarching generalization is that people with theistic beliefs have greatly different priorities than those who do not. More often than not, there are things in people's lives they value much more than cheap online entertainment, and as a result, tend to stay away from it as such. Those without such beliefs/convictions/etc are far more likely to do things which are a waste of time. The stronger someone's theistic beliefs are, the more likely they are to both defend them as well as believe what I just wrote, so all you normally will find online is people who are halfheartedly theistic or are the "sunday morning Christian" or "twice a year Christian" types.
btw, thank you for making me think through this answer, it has made me aware just how much of a waste forums like this in fact are. I can list dozens of things which are more valuable, fulfilling, and beneficial longterm than browsing macrumors or the other forums, yet for some reason I still spend time here. I definitely will be evaluating this time...
I have no idea. I'm not one of those perpetuating that attitude. All I know is that this is the attitude, regardless as to the "why" it exists. Maybe because the majority of atheists tend to have an attitude of more "religion sucks, I'm atheist" whereas religious people do not have an "atheism sucks, I'm theistic" attitude for the most part.
If these forums reflected US religious belief, atheist opinions would be vastly outnumbered by theists, wouldn't they? Why is this?
Honestly, if you really believe in Christianity or any other religion you won't waste your time posting on some internet forum under anonymous names discussing things which ultimately will benefit no one save providing some cheap entertainment. This is because people who are religious more often think their life has meaning outside what meaning they create for it. As such, self indulgence for the sake of entertainment is not normally valued in religion.
In general the internet is also ripe with issues that are not desired for nearly all religions (porn, suggestive pictures, swearing, etc). This is a key part of why I actually have avatars disabled on all forums I go to, many people like using really suggestive images as avatars. Some forums I will even disable images in posts.
Time spent on forums rarely results in any sort of benefit other than cheap entertainment. Granted, you can make friendships from it and even meet people you previously knew online (I'm guilty of this :eek:), but in general, the overwhelming majority of the time spent is "wasted." A single face to face meeting with a friend provides more long term value than hours upon hours of reading forums and posting.
The atheists I have known over the years tend to be far more bitter towards the world than theists. This does NOT mean everyone here is bitter towards the world. But it is a general trend I have noticed with the many atheists I have interacted with over the years and a trait I once shared. Bitterness tends to make you a loner. Loners seem to gravitate towards the internet because it is a place people accept you, at least somewhat, regardless of whatever reasons you are that way. I am in many regards a loner; I have probably 20k or 25k posts on forums over the past years as a result. I suspect this is also true of the majority of posters here, deep down, we do not naturally form relationships quickly and it's way easier to get cheap social interaction online than in the dreaded Real Life.
I guess the overarching generalization is that people with theistic beliefs have greatly different priorities than those who do not. More often than not, there are things in people's lives they value much more than cheap online entertainment, and as a result, tend to stay away from it as such. Those without such beliefs/convictions/etc are far more likely to do things which are a waste of time. The stronger someone's theistic beliefs are, the more likely they are to both defend them as well as believe what I just wrote, so all you normally will find online is people who are halfheartedly theistic or are the "sunday morning Christian" or "twice a year Christian" types.
btw, thank you for making me think through this answer, it has made me aware just how much of a waste forums like this in fact are. I can list dozens of things which are more valuable, fulfilling, and beneficial longterm than browsing macrumors or the other forums, yet for some reason I still spend time here. I definitely will be evaluating this time...
OllyW
Apr 28, 08:08 AM
iPads retail at $499+. HP, Acer and Dell sell lots of laptops for $399+. Based on the retail pricing of the devices, I'd say it makes sense to count iPads.
Will you mind if those cheap laptop sales are included in the tablet sales figures?
They are around the same price, would you say it makes sense to count them? ;)
Will you mind if those cheap laptop sales are included in the tablet sales figures?
They are around the same price, would you say it makes sense to count them? ;)
aquadjcity
Oct 31, 09:00 AM
My quad was to ship today, after waiting four business days and two weekend days for a CTO build (2 GB RAM). But I would feel sick to have had the machine for a week when the Octo's are announced. I hope this baby makes Logic Pro sing...
jav6454
Mar 18, 01:45 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!)
Poor thing... he doesn't realize napster and limewire are history. Also, once the data hits my device, it's mine to do with as I please. Thank you very much.
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Poor thing... he doesn't realize napster and limewire are history. Also, once the data hits my device, it's mine to do with as I please. Thank you very much.
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
roland.g
Sep 12, 04:53 PM
I'd be willing to bet the new iMacs and Mac Pros will only need a firmware update.
Good to know, since I'm not waiting till Q1 to upgrade. Could you elaborate on why you think that.
Good to know, since I'm not waiting till Q1 to upgrade. Could you elaborate on why you think that.
G5isAlive
Mar 18, 08:07 AM
Tethering Charge not justified.
How can you say charging twice for the same Data is justified?
I pay for internet I use the internet. People have been brainwashed to side with the carriers.
You pay for a bottle of water $1
You pour it on your head then the person says Thats another $1 you owe
Why? because you used the same water you just bought to wash yourself not drink.
Its the same issue, Data = Data use is use, how you use should not be charged different since on the supply side makes no difference.
this is so twisted I cant tell you enough.:mad:
this analogy is so stretched as to make no sense.
but even water, there are residential rates and commercial rates... you can't mix the two .. there are limits and plans.
you arent paying for the same data twice. you are trying to change the agreement after the fact.
dont like the agreement. dont enter into it.
How can you say charging twice for the same Data is justified?
I pay for internet I use the internet. People have been brainwashed to side with the carriers.
You pay for a bottle of water $1
You pour it on your head then the person says Thats another $1 you owe
Why? because you used the same water you just bought to wash yourself not drink.
Its the same issue, Data = Data use is use, how you use should not be charged different since on the supply side makes no difference.
this is so twisted I cant tell you enough.:mad:
this analogy is so stretched as to make no sense.
but even water, there are residential rates and commercial rates... you can't mix the two .. there are limits and plans.
you arent paying for the same data twice. you are trying to change the agreement after the fact.
dont like the agreement. dont enter into it.
leekohler
Apr 24, 11:55 AM
It's about power and control- nothing more.
Peace
Sep 20, 05:29 PM
I whole-heartedly agree.
I find it higly unlikely that there's a physical Hard Drive in the box that amounts to anything more than the UI and/or chache/buffer.
There's absolutely no need and would complicate the equation indefinitely, especially concerning digital rights.
Let's assume Iger is right, though, that there IS a HDD in the TelePort (or as you infidels call it, iTV), and that it can act as a stand-alone media access point. The question remains, how would you be able to get media onto it? Either 1) it comes with some sort of operating system which allowed you to connect it to iTS for content, or 2) it could be detected by a Mac or PC as a computer/HD over the network in order to drag-n-drop media.
Option 1, I think, is too far-fetched and risky. There would be substantial reliability issues using HDs that small to run an OS. We've all heard many nightmare-ish stories about people trying to bring their home computer to work, booting via iPod. Nonetheless, this seems like the most likely option for the use of a HDD.
Option 2, if this is the case, you already have a full-sized (i.e. reliable) HDD in your computer, which is connected to the internet, (i.e. iTS) for content. Why would you even need a HD in the box? Basically, Apple would be spending money on MicroDrives which don't have a reliable life-span and take up valuable space inside the box and for what? So that you can have an identical copy of a 1GB movie on both your Mac and your iTV box? As long as streaming works, there's no need. As long as streaming works, there's no need. As long as streaming works, there's no need!
PLUS, with iTunes DRM, you are limited to the number of copies you can make on devices you own. So an HD in the iTV would eat up one of those copies for any of the media you would choose to load onto it.
I do think, however, it would be likely to allow it to connect to .Mac, although streaming from the net is slower than from within an internal network... and on top of that, I don't know many people who store full-length, full-quality movies in their .Mac storage. In fact, I don't know any.
So, that's why I think there will be no HDD in the TelePort.
-Clive
That makes no sense at all..
In order to even view and/or listen to any media from another computer it needs a front row interface.That interface must be on the component itself.So in order for front row to run it must have some kind of O/S built into it.
I find it higly unlikely that there's a physical Hard Drive in the box that amounts to anything more than the UI and/or chache/buffer.
There's absolutely no need and would complicate the equation indefinitely, especially concerning digital rights.
Let's assume Iger is right, though, that there IS a HDD in the TelePort (or as you infidels call it, iTV), and that it can act as a stand-alone media access point. The question remains, how would you be able to get media onto it? Either 1) it comes with some sort of operating system which allowed you to connect it to iTS for content, or 2) it could be detected by a Mac or PC as a computer/HD over the network in order to drag-n-drop media.
Option 1, I think, is too far-fetched and risky. There would be substantial reliability issues using HDs that small to run an OS. We've all heard many nightmare-ish stories about people trying to bring their home computer to work, booting via iPod. Nonetheless, this seems like the most likely option for the use of a HDD.
Option 2, if this is the case, you already have a full-sized (i.e. reliable) HDD in your computer, which is connected to the internet, (i.e. iTS) for content. Why would you even need a HD in the box? Basically, Apple would be spending money on MicroDrives which don't have a reliable life-span and take up valuable space inside the box and for what? So that you can have an identical copy of a 1GB movie on both your Mac and your iTV box? As long as streaming works, there's no need. As long as streaming works, there's no need. As long as streaming works, there's no need!
PLUS, with iTunes DRM, you are limited to the number of copies you can make on devices you own. So an HD in the iTV would eat up one of those copies for any of the media you would choose to load onto it.
I do think, however, it would be likely to allow it to connect to .Mac, although streaming from the net is slower than from within an internal network... and on top of that, I don't know many people who store full-length, full-quality movies in their .Mac storage. In fact, I don't know any.
So, that's why I think there will be no HDD in the TelePort.
-Clive
That makes no sense at all..
In order to even view and/or listen to any media from another computer it needs a front row interface.That interface must be on the component itself.So in order for front row to run it must have some kind of O/S built into it.
DavidCar
Sep 12, 05:49 PM
So what is this thing, anyway? Is it a MacMini with a Merom chip and a different set of I/O ports running a special version of OSX? Can I plug an ElGato Hybrid into the USB port, download some ElGato software to it, and use it to watch TV? Can I telnet into it? I've seen no indication if it does or does not have a hard drive.
Gelfin
Mar 25, 01:26 PM
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
torbjoern
Apr 23, 09:54 PM
You do not think it takes any faith to say that NO God exists? Or that NO supernatural power exists? That you can 100% prove a lack of God?
Frankly, it doesn't take much faith to claim that nothing and no-one stands above nature (i.e. being supernatural). Everything we can see is derived from nature. Status quo should be that there is no God - in the sense of an almighty God who stands above nature, far less a God by whom nature would be created and defined. Where would God come from then? You see - we might as well accept that the laws of nature are the highest order in the entire universe. If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Why should I believe something which isn't even supposed to make sense to me?
Frankly, it doesn't take much faith to claim that nothing and no-one stands above nature (i.e. being supernatural). Everything we can see is derived from nature. Status quo should be that there is no God - in the sense of an almighty God who stands above nature, far less a God by whom nature would be created and defined. Where would God come from then? You see - we might as well accept that the laws of nature are the highest order in the entire universe. If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Why should I believe something which isn't even supposed to make sense to me?
deadkennedy
Apr 9, 09:25 AM
Let the games begin!
MrNomNoms
Apr 21, 05:24 AM
It's interesting how Apple seem to put the customer (and the customer's experience) first and profit big time in the process.
Note to self - note the above.
It is the old story, focus on the product and the profits will follow. The problem is far too many focus on the profit and ignore the product resulting in a crap product no person wants to buy.
Note to self - note the above.
It is the old story, focus on the product and the profits will follow. The problem is far too many focus on the profit and ignore the product resulting in a crap product no person wants to buy.
saving107
Apr 15, 10:02 AM
Later on in life, most of them will probably have a beer with you and apologize.
If you want to really take on bullying, you need a totally different kind of campaign.
I got the impression that this campaign was not for Bully Awareness, but to let those who are getting bullied know that "It gets Better" and to guide you to the right place if you need someone to talk to before things get worse.
If you want to really take on bullying, you need a totally different kind of campaign.
I got the impression that this campaign was not for Bully Awareness, but to let those who are getting bullied know that "It gets Better" and to guide you to the right place if you need someone to talk to before things get worse.
hunkaburningluv
Apr 9, 11:21 AM
That's where things are going.
I read that a new XBOX might not be released for another 5 years and that the PlayStation is on a 10 year schedule. If that's actually the schedule, then the consoles could face serious competition from iOS and Android games.
The graphics difference from the first iPhone to the iPhone 4 or iPad 2 is a great comparison. That's just four years. What if that advancement continues for the next four years � which is very likely � the graphics could be amazing on iOS devices.
There's a fair bit of misconception in the 10 year lifecycle of the PS3 - the PS2 had a ten year lifecycle too, but the PS3 was released well into that 10 years. The 10 year thing is taken out of context. There will most likely be a ps4 in a couple of years (well, if Japan recovers from the current happenings). I think the same thing can apply to the 360 - there's been a lot of talk about some thing similar - I do think that we won't see anything this year due to the runaway success of Kinect. We'll most likely get an announcement next year and a release the year after. I've a feeling that we'll see something different in the way compatibility works as there was talk of forward "compatible games" many have taken their own thoughts on what that has meant though.
I read that a new XBOX might not be released for another 5 years and that the PlayStation is on a 10 year schedule. If that's actually the schedule, then the consoles could face serious competition from iOS and Android games.
The graphics difference from the first iPhone to the iPhone 4 or iPad 2 is a great comparison. That's just four years. What if that advancement continues for the next four years � which is very likely � the graphics could be amazing on iOS devices.
There's a fair bit of misconception in the 10 year lifecycle of the PS3 - the PS2 had a ten year lifecycle too, but the PS3 was released well into that 10 years. The 10 year thing is taken out of context. There will most likely be a ps4 in a couple of years (well, if Japan recovers from the current happenings). I think the same thing can apply to the 360 - there's been a lot of talk about some thing similar - I do think that we won't see anything this year due to the runaway success of Kinect. We'll most likely get an announcement next year and a release the year after. I've a feeling that we'll see something different in the way compatibility works as there was talk of forward "compatible games" many have taken their own thoughts on what that has meant though.
Fraaaa
Apr 15, 09:53 AM
So Trevor is for people that consider suicide - yet the video looks much towards LGBT only.
Aduntu
Apr 23, 02:55 AM
sounds a little conflicting ... I write it off as jibberish ... I'll stick with science instead
The information isn't conflicting, and it's not intended to convince anyone of intelligent design. In it's simplest form, it's showing that the Hebrew word translated "day" is used to refer to varying periods of time, not necessarily 24-hour periods. As a side note, it's also a portion of an element in the bible that supports the same conclusion as science, which is that the earth isn't merely 7,000 years old. The theory of 4 billion years doesn't contradict the bible.
The information isn't conflicting, and it's not intended to convince anyone of intelligent design. In it's simplest form, it's showing that the Hebrew word translated "day" is used to refer to varying periods of time, not necessarily 24-hour periods. As a side note, it's also a portion of an element in the bible that supports the same conclusion as science, which is that the earth isn't merely 7,000 years old. The theory of 4 billion years doesn't contradict the bible.
Hisdem
Mar 11, 03:48 PM
Last year, after having close friends suffering in Chile, I assumed it would be a very long time until the world saw such a powerful quake. Unfortunately, I was wrong. I hope the loss of life is minimal, and I think it will be possible to achieve this goal. Luckily, the japanese people are very well prepared for this kind of situation.
Of course, one can never ever get used to this kind of thing. Best wishes to everyone in Japan, our thoughts are with you all!
Of course, one can never ever get used to this kind of thing. Best wishes to everyone in Japan, our thoughts are with you all!
No comments:
Post a Comment