skunk
Apr 24, 06:48 PM
I completely agree with you. These Abrahamic religions do have a lot in common.Including a completely identifiable chief god and pantheon shared with other local polytheistic religions. The only difference was that in the case of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the polytheism was suppressed and the chief god reigned unchallenged.
Nope, not in the Old Testament either. There is a recounting of events which say what happened, but there is no commandment from God to "urge the believers to battle. If there are among you 20 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 200...... And if there are among you 100 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 1000 of those who have disbelieved...(qur'an 8:65) to this day.Maybe not in those exact words, but Yahweh spoke to Gad, David's seer, saying, Go and speak to David, saying, Thus says Yahweh, I offer you three things: choose you one of them, that I may do it to you. So Gad came to David, and said to him, Thus says Yahweh, Take which you will: either three years of famine; or three months to be consumed before your foes, while the sword of your enemies overtakes you; or else three days the sword of Yahweh, even pestilence in the land, and the angel of Yahweh destroying throughout all the borders of Israel. Now therefore consider what answer I shall return to him who sent me. David said to Gad, I am in a great strait: let me fall, I pray, into the hand of Yahweh; for very great are his mercies: and let me not fall into the hand of man. So Yahweh sent a pestilence on Israel; and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men. (1 Chronicles 21:9-14 WEB)and "Next we headed for the land of Bashan, where King Og and his army attacked us at Edrei. But the LORD told me, 'Do not be afraid of him, for I have given you victory over Og and his army, giving you his entire land. Treat him just as you treated King Sihon of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon.' So the LORD our God handed King Og and all his people over to us, and we killed them all. We conquered all sixty of his towns, the entire Argob region in his kingdom of Bashan. These were all fortified cities with high walls and barred gates. We also took many unwalled villages at the same time. We completely destroyed the kingdom of Bashan, just as we had destroyed King Sihon of Heshbon. We destroyed all the people in every town we conquered – men, women, and children alike. But we kept all the livestock for ourselves and took plunder from all the towns." (Deuteronomy 3:1-7 NLT)come pretty damned close.
The New Testament Abrogates the Old Testament anyway, so it's not relevant to Christians.The Old Testament is absolutely valid for Christians. Without the Old Testament, the entire dynastic myth collapses on itself.
Nope, not in the Old Testament either. There is a recounting of events which say what happened, but there is no commandment from God to "urge the believers to battle. If there are among you 20 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 200...... And if there are among you 100 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 1000 of those who have disbelieved...(qur'an 8:65) to this day.Maybe not in those exact words, but Yahweh spoke to Gad, David's seer, saying, Go and speak to David, saying, Thus says Yahweh, I offer you three things: choose you one of them, that I may do it to you. So Gad came to David, and said to him, Thus says Yahweh, Take which you will: either three years of famine; or three months to be consumed before your foes, while the sword of your enemies overtakes you; or else three days the sword of Yahweh, even pestilence in the land, and the angel of Yahweh destroying throughout all the borders of Israel. Now therefore consider what answer I shall return to him who sent me. David said to Gad, I am in a great strait: let me fall, I pray, into the hand of Yahweh; for very great are his mercies: and let me not fall into the hand of man. So Yahweh sent a pestilence on Israel; and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men. (1 Chronicles 21:9-14 WEB)and "Next we headed for the land of Bashan, where King Og and his army attacked us at Edrei. But the LORD told me, 'Do not be afraid of him, for I have given you victory over Og and his army, giving you his entire land. Treat him just as you treated King Sihon of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon.' So the LORD our God handed King Og and all his people over to us, and we killed them all. We conquered all sixty of his towns, the entire Argob region in his kingdom of Bashan. These were all fortified cities with high walls and barred gates. We also took many unwalled villages at the same time. We completely destroyed the kingdom of Bashan, just as we had destroyed King Sihon of Heshbon. We destroyed all the people in every town we conquered – men, women, and children alike. But we kept all the livestock for ourselves and took plunder from all the towns." (Deuteronomy 3:1-7 NLT)come pretty damned close.
The New Testament Abrogates the Old Testament anyway, so it's not relevant to Christians.The Old Testament is absolutely valid for Christians. Without the Old Testament, the entire dynastic myth collapses on itself.
paul4339
Apr 28, 11:51 AM
Yes, I strongly disagree that students need to learn Windows in order to thrive in the workplace. ... Kids need to learn how to use a computer. Which one is not that important any more. ...
I agree, students need to learn to use a/any computer and how to *think*. If they can do that they can learn any computer and adapt to change.
P.
I agree, students need to learn to use a/any computer and how to *think*. If they can do that they can learn any computer and adapt to change.
P.
eawmp1
Apr 22, 09:43 PM
According to the poll which I linked earlier (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1055916&highlight=), about 65% of us are atheist or agnostic.
You're assuming truthful answers.
Potential confounding variables still stand.
You're assuming truthful answers.
Potential confounding variables still stand.
R.Perez
Mar 13, 05:36 PM
Opinions should be the same. Nuclear is clean and efficient, but has potential dangers. Shouldn't take a meltdown to remind anyone of that.
efficient yes, clean NO.
efficient yes, clean NO.
tk421
Apr 13, 12:34 PM
Nobody I know that's a professional editor (as opposed to a hobbyist) is very excited. If I had to sum up the opinions in two sentences, it would be: It looks like a mixed bag. I need to hear more.
My thoughts: On the surface, they seem to have addressed a lot of "problems" that didn't exist for me. At the same time, they did NOT address what I found to be the largest shortcomings: Media Management, and Multi-Editor Support. Which leads me to believe that it targets a different audience than I am. For example, I didn't see anything that makes it better for feature film use. But a lot of automated stuff (audio processing, color correction, etc.) will make it better for wedding videos or projects with really small budgets.
Some things, like making audio and video merged in a single track, sound like a drawback, not a feature. But I would have to try it out myself. Maybe it'd be good once I got used to the new way of doing things.
There were some things that sounded good. Utilizing multiple cores, 64 bit, background rendering, editing while ingesting, and PluralEyes-like audio syncing. Of course all this depends on how they're implemented. Just like I might actually like merging audio and video, I might end up not liking these things (for example if you can't disable background rendering). One other "feature" I really like is the price, but that's secondary to the actual functionality.
I guess we'll see. I'm interested in hearing more.
My thoughts: On the surface, they seem to have addressed a lot of "problems" that didn't exist for me. At the same time, they did NOT address what I found to be the largest shortcomings: Media Management, and Multi-Editor Support. Which leads me to believe that it targets a different audience than I am. For example, I didn't see anything that makes it better for feature film use. But a lot of automated stuff (audio processing, color correction, etc.) will make it better for wedding videos or projects with really small budgets.
Some things, like making audio and video merged in a single track, sound like a drawback, not a feature. But I would have to try it out myself. Maybe it'd be good once I got used to the new way of doing things.
There were some things that sounded good. Utilizing multiple cores, 64 bit, background rendering, editing while ingesting, and PluralEyes-like audio syncing. Of course all this depends on how they're implemented. Just like I might actually like merging audio and video, I might end up not liking these things (for example if you can't disable background rendering). One other "feature" I really like is the price, but that's secondary to the actual functionality.
I guess we'll see. I'm interested in hearing more.
Iconoclysm
Apr 20, 08:01 PM
Android is to Windows, as iOS is to Mac OS.
The similarities are astounding � Google is doing the same thing Microsoft did back in the day.
As much as Apple cares about marketshare, the experience is more important to them then the product itself. That's really something.
Nonsense - Microsoft did not give away Windows for free, and certainly never gave the source code to OEMs to develop in their own way. Windows Phone 7 is to Windows...and that's about it. There's no point in even trying to make this comparison since Android as a platform is not as prolific as iOS anyway, is HORRIBLE for use in the enterprise (blackberry is the real competition there), and is also used on phones that aren't even capable of running apps.
The similarities are astounding � Google is doing the same thing Microsoft did back in the day.
As much as Apple cares about marketshare, the experience is more important to them then the product itself. That's really something.
Nonsense - Microsoft did not give away Windows for free, and certainly never gave the source code to OEMs to develop in their own way. Windows Phone 7 is to Windows...and that's about it. There's no point in even trying to make this comparison since Android as a platform is not as prolific as iOS anyway, is HORRIBLE for use in the enterprise (blackberry is the real competition there), and is also used on phones that aren't even capable of running apps.
Chundles
Apr 8, 10:22 PM
Great news. Bring on more Infinity Blade-esque games! :D
Hmmm, swipe, swipe, swipe, next. Swipe, swipe, swipe, next.
Nah, gimme the Infinity Blade graphics but in a game that needs more than just flicking left or right.
Hmmm, swipe, swipe, swipe, next. Swipe, swipe, swipe, next.
Nah, gimme the Infinity Blade graphics but in a game that needs more than just flicking left or right.
AidenShaw
Jul 12, 11:22 PM
SW engineers usually optimize their systems with expectations of the environment they will run in. Pro-level applications often run much better in systems that use SMP, but not all. Sometimes it is better to pipeline a few processes at high speed, rather than do a lot of task swapping. Most of Apples core customer's application seem to benefit from SMP. So, that is what they are going to expect from Pro-level hardware.
Please don't confuse SMP with multi-socket. You must have an SMP (or even an ASMP) operating system to use any computer with more than one core.
It doesn't matter if the two cores are in one socket or two - both require SMP in order to manage the cores.
Saying that a dual-socket system is "SMP" and a single-socket dual-core system is "not SMP" shows that you don't quite understand the computer technology required to do multi-processing.
Please don't confuse SMP with multi-socket. You must have an SMP (or even an ASMP) operating system to use any computer with more than one core.
It doesn't matter if the two cores are in one socket or two - both require SMP in order to manage the cores.
Saying that a dual-socket system is "SMP" and a single-socket dual-core system is "not SMP" shows that you don't quite understand the computer technology required to do multi-processing.
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
Don't panic
Mar 15, 05:48 PM
afaik it's more designed as a holding pool for fuel rods to be put in and those just recently taken out
the problem seems to be that reactor 4 has been shut off for maintance works, thus many of the normal fuel rods seem to have been taken out of the reactor and put into the basin ... but that is only as far as i heard
information flow has been rather limited because there was night in japan so i suspect the next hours we will get more informations/press releases again
that would make a bit more sense.
Lieteracy Rate World Map
world map with countries.
Map it: Introduce the world
kids,world map printable,
File:World map of countries by
world map with countries named
World+map+with+countries+
The world map is almost as sad
blank world map with countries
the problem seems to be that reactor 4 has been shut off for maintance works, thus many of the normal fuel rods seem to have been taken out of the reactor and put into the basin ... but that is only as far as i heard
information flow has been rather limited because there was night in japan so i suspect the next hours we will get more informations/press releases again
that would make a bit more sense.
Insilin1i
Feb 24, 08:10 AM
Android might surpass the iPhone. The iPhone is limited to 1 device whereas the Android is spanned over many more devices and will continue to branch out.
This could also be a flaw, I would be really annoyed if I bought the best droid available and then a month later another six of them come out better than mine. A lot of people like buying the best available and then riding it out until the next model is available, but when there phone gets replaced by another 40 phones I am not to sure how people will react.
This could also be a flaw, I would be really annoyed if I bought the best droid available and then a month later another six of them come out better than mine. A lot of people like buying the best available and then riding it out until the next model is available, but when there phone gets replaced by another 40 phones I am not to sure how people will react.
theBB
Sep 12, 04:52 PM
I don't want to watch movies on my computer, so this sounds like a great product. I assume I can hook a USB drive with movies or music and download iTunes products directly to that same drive without a need for a computer. If I hook iTV to ethernet, maybe that drive can even become a file server of some sort. I can justify the cost of iTV if I can use it as a music streaming device, print server and file server. Let's see how many of these features will actually be there. :)
However, the price point for movies is wrong for me. I started using Netflix instead of going to Blockbuster, because of price and wider selection. Apple's offer is more than double the price for a movie, even without the cost of iTV unless I watch them twice or more. Apple's library is bound to be smaller for a long time to come as well. I guess instant gratification is the only saving grace. Well, considering I've never bought a TV show or music video, maybe I am not in the target audience anyways.
However, the price point for movies is wrong for me. I started using Netflix instead of going to Blockbuster, because of price and wider selection. Apple's offer is more than double the price for a movie, even without the cost of iTV unless I watch them twice or more. Apple's library is bound to be smaller for a long time to come as well. I guess instant gratification is the only saving grace. Well, considering I've never bought a TV show or music video, maybe I am not in the target audience anyways.
mrblack927
Apr 11, 01:22 PM
The biggest hassle was keyboard differences for me. Some keys I use quite often like "home" and "end" are missing. Command, which fills in for control in most cases, isn't in the "corners" (first and last keys in the bottom row) so instead of using my pinky + index finger for things like copy/paste, I had to get used to using thumb + index finger.
That being said, once you get used to it, it's not a problem. Like many others, I use winXP at work and OSX at home. You would think it would be confusing, but muscle memory is an amazing thing. Your hands eventually know which keys to use based on the environment you're using. You become almost ambidextrous in that sense. ;)
That being said, once you get used to it, it's not a problem. Like many others, I use winXP at work and OSX at home. You would think it would be confusing, but muscle memory is an amazing thing. Your hands eventually know which keys to use based on the environment you're using. You become almost ambidextrous in that sense. ;)
superleccy
Sep 20, 05:55 AM
I know of at least one company (http://www.itv.com/) in the UK who won't be too happy if they keep that name.
<UK>Indeed. EyeTV and ITV was confusing enough, but now we have iTV too. And I don't think I'll be watching Coronation street on iTV if Apple are going to charge �1.99 an episode. Think again Steve.</UK>
<Everyone Else>ITV is the name of the UK's biggest terrestrial commercial TV network</Everyone Else>
<UK>Indeed. EyeTV and ITV was confusing enough, but now we have iTV too. And I don't think I'll be watching Coronation street on iTV if Apple are going to charge �1.99 an episode. Think again Steve.</UK>
<Everyone Else>ITV is the name of the UK's biggest terrestrial commercial TV network</Everyone Else>
RichP
Sep 12, 04:16 PM
Dude did you miss the coverage. This thing plays HD. He played Incredibles in HD. Just because the content they are offering now is 480p does not mean that it will be 6 months from now when this is released. Also the HDMI and component connectors would be pointless if it was not HD.
Exactly. In the end, we only had a sneak peak, and dont know much.
I will say that we were shown the back ports, so I doubt there is going to be any other inputs/outputs added.
This IS the iPod of home theater. Just read back in this thread about people who have this unit beat: "Ive got a chipped xBox that does the same" "My xbox 360 and Windows MCE can do this" "All I need is x, y, and z to do this much better" There were MP3 players before the ipod; the ipod made it simple for AVERAGE users; we on here generally dont represent average users.
Buy it, plug it in, it works. No keyboard, no booting up, etc etc. A computer on a TV makes things more complicated.
Exactly. In the end, we only had a sneak peak, and dont know much.
I will say that we were shown the back ports, so I doubt there is going to be any other inputs/outputs added.
This IS the iPod of home theater. Just read back in this thread about people who have this unit beat: "Ive got a chipped xBox that does the same" "My xbox 360 and Windows MCE can do this" "All I need is x, y, and z to do this much better" There were MP3 players before the ipod; the ipod made it simple for AVERAGE users; we on here generally dont represent average users.
Buy it, plug it in, it works. No keyboard, no booting up, etc etc. A computer on a TV makes things more complicated.
Spectrum
Aug 29, 10:46 PM
Not all organic foods are actually organic.
Care to enlighten us?
Care to enlighten us?
tangodiva
Aug 26, 04:11 AM
Had drop call issues with my iPhone 3G ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. Not kidding. Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Indiana, New York, New Jersey . . . you get the picture.
Now with my iPhone 4, it is WORSE. I get dropped 3 or 4 times during a 15 minute conversation.
Talked my friend into an iPhone (it is GREAT for everything except being a phone) and she, in 3 days, has had to return 2 phones that were defective. She, a tech industry executive, asked AT&T and Apple what their failure rate was, and they replied, "We can't tell you that." Go figure. Also learned that there is one side of the band on the iPhone 4 for telephone and the other side for data. Having your hands directly on either side will diminish the reception. Using a headset does help (keeping hands off phone)
My iPad hasn't seemed to have so many problems connecting on the go, but it does run a little slower sometimes. Have to say it rules, except the flash thing (best surfing anywhere?????), but another thread:D
Now with my iPhone 4, it is WORSE. I get dropped 3 or 4 times during a 15 minute conversation.
Talked my friend into an iPhone (it is GREAT for everything except being a phone) and she, in 3 days, has had to return 2 phones that were defective. She, a tech industry executive, asked AT&T and Apple what their failure rate was, and they replied, "We can't tell you that." Go figure. Also learned that there is one side of the band on the iPhone 4 for telephone and the other side for data. Having your hands directly on either side will diminish the reception. Using a headset does help (keeping hands off phone)
My iPad hasn't seemed to have so many problems connecting on the go, but it does run a little slower sometimes. Have to say it rules, except the flash thing (best surfing anywhere?????), but another thread:D
PhantomPumpkin
Apr 21, 09:48 AM
1. Android phones beat the iPhone to the punch. FACT.
2. Android ALSO helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. FACT.
3. Android manufacturers are making more money than ever. [Samsung, HTC are a proof] FACT.
4. Android has been a blatant rip off of the iPhone from day 1 OR day -1. FACT.
5. Android provides a very fragmented experience compared to the integrated experience on iOS. FACT.
6. Android is devoid of any viable OR any ecosystem. FACT.
7. Apple makes more profit through the iPhone than all of the competitors combined. FACT.
8. iOS with iTunes, Mac OS X, AppleTV and cloud services provides the best ecosystem available. Arguable. BUT FACT.
9. Apple DOES care about the marketshare; Apple DOES care about the money; APPLE does care about the user experience. FACT.
10. Android fanboys are comparitively bitter and are very rude to the fellow commentors and especially Apple and Steve Jobs. FACT.
That's all I could come up with.
1. What "punch"? If we're going to use arbitrary words, iPhones beat Android to the "desert". FACT
2. Phone carriers selling Android devices and offering incentives helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. I fixed it for you.
3. No, they aren't. Please link some sources stating so?
4. Sure, I'll give you that if you want to say it's a ripoff. This is a whole other issue.
5. Sure. It's bound to.
6. That tends to be the way of the Open Source area.
7. I'd hope so. Any competitors selling iPhones should probably be sued, since you know, that'd be a blatant rip off.
8. Sure.
9. Yes, yes and yes.
10. They're really just as bad as Apple's fanboys. I've noticed that the only difference in comments from the huge Apple fanboys and anti Apple fanboys are generally the words "Best" and "Worst" get flip flopped.
2. Android ALSO helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. FACT.
3. Android manufacturers are making more money than ever. [Samsung, HTC are a proof] FACT.
4. Android has been a blatant rip off of the iPhone from day 1 OR day -1. FACT.
5. Android provides a very fragmented experience compared to the integrated experience on iOS. FACT.
6. Android is devoid of any viable OR any ecosystem. FACT.
7. Apple makes more profit through the iPhone than all of the competitors combined. FACT.
8. iOS with iTunes, Mac OS X, AppleTV and cloud services provides the best ecosystem available. Arguable. BUT FACT.
9. Apple DOES care about the marketshare; Apple DOES care about the money; APPLE does care about the user experience. FACT.
10. Android fanboys are comparitively bitter and are very rude to the fellow commentors and especially Apple and Steve Jobs. FACT.
That's all I could come up with.
1. What "punch"? If we're going to use arbitrary words, iPhones beat Android to the "desert". FACT
2. Phone carriers selling Android devices and offering incentives helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. I fixed it for you.
3. No, they aren't. Please link some sources stating so?
4. Sure, I'll give you that if you want to say it's a ripoff. This is a whole other issue.
5. Sure. It's bound to.
6. That tends to be the way of the Open Source area.
7. I'd hope so. Any competitors selling iPhones should probably be sued, since you know, that'd be a blatant rip off.
8. Sure.
9. Yes, yes and yes.
10. They're really just as bad as Apple's fanboys. I've noticed that the only difference in comments from the huge Apple fanboys and anti Apple fanboys are generally the words "Best" and "Worst" get flip flopped.
AidenShaw
Sep 21, 11:15 AM
...you have a Tivo - you have made the decision to keep your recorded TV media in its traditional place - the living room / den.
The iTV concept starts from the premis that this is an outdated concept.
You have some interesting points, but for some people there are other considerations....
The iTV concept starts from the premis that this is an outdated concept.
You have some interesting points, but for some people there are other considerations....
pmz
Mar 18, 09:27 AM
Go look up the words: entitlement, spoiled, ignorance and unfounded :)
What the hell is your problem? AT&T has broken the law. Are you content with that?
Do you think it's appropriate for any company to sell an unlimited service, and make every attempt possible to limit it?
What the hell is your problem? AT&T has broken the law. Are you content with that?
Do you think it's appropriate for any company to sell an unlimited service, and make every attempt possible to limit it?
Iconoclysm
Apr 20, 08:12 PM
You mean just like unix operating systems have "so many" viruses and it's a completely open source environment? In fact OSX is based on BSD unix. LOL
Yeah, because they hold the largest marketshare, right?
Yeah, because they hold the largest marketshare, right?
citizenzen
Apr 23, 09:29 PM
http://carm.org/entropy-and-causality-used-proof-gods-existence
Of course this is a Christian Apologetics site so necessarily biased.
Biased, yes. And it reveals the key difference between theists and atheists.
Even if we accept all the steps which lead us to point #6, we are left with (and I paraphrase) ...
Our universe was caused by something very powerful, that isn't itself our universe.
While we could argue that point at length, let's for the moment take it at face value. The problem is the next step derived from from that point. There they make a major leap of faith ...
6. The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state.
B. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning.
C. This means that God is uncaused.
7. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Just because the Bible says something, doesn't mean it is the truth. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning? Is that supposed to be what amounts to evidence? And based on this very flimsy evidence, "therefore" the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
That logic is simply laughable.
It begs the question, did any other religion describe their God[s] as powerful, everlasting, creators of the universe? Why aren't their God[s] likewise the "the uncaused cause of the universe?" Since apparently all it takes is attributing those qualities to a God to make them so.
For example, I have my own God. His name is Darren. Darren is the creator of the universe. He is incredibly powerful. Darren is eternal.
Now to prove Darren is the "uncaused cause of the universe" just refer to the argument that edifyingGerbil linked to, but when you get to #6, substitute this ...
6. Citizenzen teaches that Darren is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. Darren's existence (according to Citizenzen) is not an event, but a state.
B. Citizenzen says that Darren is God without a beginning.
C. This means that Darren is uncaused.
7. Therefore, Darren is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Of course this is a Christian Apologetics site so necessarily biased.
Biased, yes. And it reveals the key difference between theists and atheists.
Even if we accept all the steps which lead us to point #6, we are left with (and I paraphrase) ...
Our universe was caused by something very powerful, that isn't itself our universe.
While we could argue that point at length, let's for the moment take it at face value. The problem is the next step derived from from that point. There they make a major leap of faith ...
6. The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state.
B. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning.
C. This means that God is uncaused.
7. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Just because the Bible says something, doesn't mean it is the truth. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning? Is that supposed to be what amounts to evidence? And based on this very flimsy evidence, "therefore" the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
That logic is simply laughable.
It begs the question, did any other religion describe their God[s] as powerful, everlasting, creators of the universe? Why aren't their God[s] likewise the "the uncaused cause of the universe?" Since apparently all it takes is attributing those qualities to a God to make them so.
For example, I have my own God. His name is Darren. Darren is the creator of the universe. He is incredibly powerful. Darren is eternal.
Now to prove Darren is the "uncaused cause of the universe" just refer to the argument that edifyingGerbil linked to, but when you get to #6, substitute this ...
6. Citizenzen teaches that Darren is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. Darren's existence (according to Citizenzen) is not an event, but a state.
B. Citizenzen says that Darren is God without a beginning.
C. This means that Darren is uncaused.
7. Therefore, Darren is the uncaused cause of the universe.
AppliedVisual
Oct 30, 11:11 PM
No AV you misunderstand. Mac Pro comes with 4 HD Sleds built in. What he's asking is if we could get more so we can have a bunch of HDs already mounted in additional sleds so we can pop 'em in real fast whenever we need to change them out for didfferent client projects.Good to know.
Oh... That makes much more sense now. :cool:
Now what about instead of dealing with the solution of swapping drives in/out of the Mac Pro, instead use an external fiber channel or eSATA drive enclosure with hot-swappable drives? Fiber channel would be expensive unless you're already using it, but eSATA enclosures aren't all that bad.
Oh... That makes much more sense now. :cool:
Now what about instead of dealing with the solution of swapping drives in/out of the Mac Pro, instead use an external fiber channel or eSATA drive enclosure with hot-swappable drives? Fiber channel would be expensive unless you're already using it, but eSATA enclosures aren't all that bad.
wtfk
Aug 29, 02:36 PM
As soon as you mention Greenpeace, morons seem to go on auto-pilot and once they do that you can't stop them.
Do you think Greenpeace's behavior might have something to do with that?
Do you think Greenpeace's behavior might have something to do with that?
No comments:
Post a Comment