AndrewLockhart
Aug 25, 03:47 PM
For once I am glad to live in the UK. Usually we get ripped off left right and center. The iPhone4 is available on all networks, even if there is little difference in price.
Andy Lockhart
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5GOFMuiFkk
Andy Lockhart
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5GOFMuiFkk
Multimedia
Oct 20, 06:25 PM
My 24" came in earlier this week. Using it as my main monitor and the MBP screen is my tools monitor now. Very happy overall and the SD and CF ports are a bonus.
BI'm Speechless. All I can think of is "Wow!"
Makes 20" 1600 x 1200 look puny and the 24" 1920 x 1200 modest.
How do I look for dead pixels AppliedVisual? Yes I want two. :)
The 30" makes such a huge difference in managing windows of different applications simultaneously. I can see why you wanted 2 AV. Tell me, is there a significant improvement inthe design of your 3007 vs the 3005 model? I notice mine has no moving parts touch sensitive controls that are so stealth. I really love the black or dark brown matt finish way more than the shiny aluminum Apple finish. In the dark, this matt dark brown disappears so only the screens are floating there.
______________________
High Definition TV Was 23" on the 24" now 29" on the 30 - up 126%.
Interpolates up 133% wonderfully to 2560 Wide x 1440 High.
While the High Def programming looks great, it really makes the standard def programming look quite a bit worse than it does on the native res 24".
I envy you kids who won't have to live with analog and standard def digital TV very many more years. For old folks like me who have been anticipating and waiting for High-Def TV for many years - and I can assure you we are very few, it can't happen too soon 'cause we will be dead very soon after the transition is complete. :(
BI'm Speechless. All I can think of is "Wow!"
Makes 20" 1600 x 1200 look puny and the 24" 1920 x 1200 modest.
How do I look for dead pixels AppliedVisual? Yes I want two. :)
The 30" makes such a huge difference in managing windows of different applications simultaneously. I can see why you wanted 2 AV. Tell me, is there a significant improvement inthe design of your 3007 vs the 3005 model? I notice mine has no moving parts touch sensitive controls that are so stealth. I really love the black or dark brown matt finish way more than the shiny aluminum Apple finish. In the dark, this matt dark brown disappears so only the screens are floating there.
______________________
High Definition TV Was 23" on the 24" now 29" on the 30 - up 126%.
Interpolates up 133% wonderfully to 2560 Wide x 1440 High.
While the High Def programming looks great, it really makes the standard def programming look quite a bit worse than it does on the native res 24".
I envy you kids who won't have to live with analog and standard def digital TV very many more years. For old folks like me who have been anticipating and waiting for High-Def TV for many years - and I can assure you we are very few, it can't happen too soon 'cause we will be dead very soon after the transition is complete. :(
Lord Blackadder
Mar 15, 07:29 PM
nuclear power hadn't got a long term future in germany before this event though. the discussion is only about the running time of existing nuclear plants (after all 6 reactors were originally destined to be shut down originally in the 2010-2013 time frame)
the politicking here will be that after the elections the reactors will be turned _on_ again .. against the will of the voting population
I don't know much about the situation, but it seems to me that if the reactors are already up and running, the majority of the environmental impact has already happened. Shutting them off now versus when the currently installed fuel rods are spent does not significaly reduce the environmental impact of the stations - all it does is take 7 gW out of the grid, energy that will presumably have to be made up through increased output from coal/gas/oil plants. However, as you said:
the question which comes up though is: if 7 nuclear plants can easily taken off the grid for 3 months without consequences to electricity supply... why exactly are they deemed so important ?
If they really can afford to take them off the grid, then why are they running? Perhaps they are sewlling the enegry to other countries and don't want to lose the revenue? Or maybe the German government is unwilling to remove a domestic power-producing option in favor of fuels they have to import from elsewhere?
An intersting situation.
A cold comfort considering it is now already thought to be close to a level 6 incident on the INES scale.
Yes, but you'd be saying the same thing regardless of where this incident fell on the INES scale, wouldn't you? As long as global energy consumption continues to grow, you'd better get used to living with nuclear power, because right now there just isn't an alternative. Turning off all the nuclear plants will put much heavier pressure on the oil, coal and gas industries, and that will have its own set of consequences.
the politicking here will be that after the elections the reactors will be turned _on_ again .. against the will of the voting population
I don't know much about the situation, but it seems to me that if the reactors are already up and running, the majority of the environmental impact has already happened. Shutting them off now versus when the currently installed fuel rods are spent does not significaly reduce the environmental impact of the stations - all it does is take 7 gW out of the grid, energy that will presumably have to be made up through increased output from coal/gas/oil plants. However, as you said:
the question which comes up though is: if 7 nuclear plants can easily taken off the grid for 3 months without consequences to electricity supply... why exactly are they deemed so important ?
If they really can afford to take them off the grid, then why are they running? Perhaps they are sewlling the enegry to other countries and don't want to lose the revenue? Or maybe the German government is unwilling to remove a domestic power-producing option in favor of fuels they have to import from elsewhere?
An intersting situation.
A cold comfort considering it is now already thought to be close to a level 6 incident on the INES scale.
Yes, but you'd be saying the same thing regardless of where this incident fell on the INES scale, wouldn't you? As long as global energy consumption continues to grow, you'd better get used to living with nuclear power, because right now there just isn't an alternative. Turning off all the nuclear plants will put much heavier pressure on the oil, coal and gas industries, and that will have its own set of consequences.
nacnud
Sep 12, 06:24 PM
This iTV seems like a very interesting device, first off it appears to be a HD wireless media streaming box like the Hauppauge Media MVP but hopefuly with a nicer UI.
However another thing also jumps out, if can you add an ipod via the USB or even an external hard drive then this could give consumers access to the iTunes Store without a computer. That has got to be worth a lot in terms of possible revenue and growing the market rather than just the market share.
However another thing also jumps out, if can you add an ipod via the USB or even an external hard drive then this could give consumers access to the iTunes Store without a computer. That has got to be worth a lot in terms of possible revenue and growing the market rather than just the market share.
emotion
Sep 21, 01:39 PM
My point is that it's possible that the "network can't cope", exactly.
Hence the HD as cache perhaps?
Hence the HD as cache perhaps?
gugy
Sep 12, 05:19 PM
If the iTV streams HD content, then it's going to be heavily compressed HD content. Depending on the quality of the compression, it may look great on your flat panel and it may look just okay, we'll see.
Let's hope so.
I had trouble with Airtunes, so I have my fingers crossed expecting ITV will do a better job with music and videos (HDTV preferably).
If Apple can make this happen, this ITV hardware will be killer IMHO.
Let's hope so.
I had trouble with Airtunes, so I have my fingers crossed expecting ITV will do a better job with music and videos (HDTV preferably).
If Apple can make this happen, this ITV hardware will be killer IMHO.
ArizonaKid
Aug 29, 11:02 AM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
Organizations are responsible for the impact they have on community resources that impact everyone. Apple is going to have bad news sometimes, so accept it.
Organizations are responsible for the impact they have on community resources that impact everyone. Apple is going to have bad news sometimes, so accept it.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:06 AM
Naah. That's not it. Try again.
Um... it is actually.
Hardcore is defined as the "the most active member of a group or sub-class of individuals" used an an adjective as it is in hardcore gamer that means "the most active gamer".
Hardcore means the gamers that game the most. If you have a Mac there is a great dictionary app built in.
Um... it is actually.
Hardcore is defined as the "the most active member of a group or sub-class of individuals" used an an adjective as it is in hardcore gamer that means "the most active gamer".
Hardcore means the gamers that game the most. If you have a Mac there is a great dictionary app built in.
Lau
Aug 29, 04:07 PM
You know what I hate about crap like this?
People read it, and then point their respective (washed in soap with chemical additives and toxins) fingers at Appple, because it makes them feel good. "Yeah, this Apple stuff is crap!"
Then they go drive a block down the street to get milk from a cow who's waste runoff pollutes the local river, sit down and watch their TV with power generated from a coal-spewing power plant while eating dinner from plastic packaging that came from oil that was refined at a plant that contaminates the environment.
Unless you live on an uninhabited island, catch all your own food and generate your own power, you have no room to talk. None of us do.
I know where you're coming from, but surely it's a good thing to try and get the companies we use to improve their environmental policy? If Dell does recycle more than Apple, then maybe Apple should recycle more. If Apple's stuff lasts longer, Dell should make their stuff last longer. And yes, at the same time, we should be putting pressure on companies to reduce food packaging and use less power and fuel. I don't really see it as a competition between companies, more that if one company does something environmentally better than another, the other should try and match it, you know?
People read it, and then point their respective (washed in soap with chemical additives and toxins) fingers at Appple, because it makes them feel good. "Yeah, this Apple stuff is crap!"
Then they go drive a block down the street to get milk from a cow who's waste runoff pollutes the local river, sit down and watch their TV with power generated from a coal-spewing power plant while eating dinner from plastic packaging that came from oil that was refined at a plant that contaminates the environment.
Unless you live on an uninhabited island, catch all your own food and generate your own power, you have no room to talk. None of us do.
I know where you're coming from, but surely it's a good thing to try and get the companies we use to improve their environmental policy? If Dell does recycle more than Apple, then maybe Apple should recycle more. If Apple's stuff lasts longer, Dell should make their stuff last longer. And yes, at the same time, we should be putting pressure on companies to reduce food packaging and use less power and fuel. I don't really see it as a competition between companies, more that if one company does something environmentally better than another, the other should try and match it, you know?
darkplanets
Mar 13, 04:43 PM
SNIP (Just to save space)
I know thorium doesn't have an awesome past, especially in early development. That said, I think with more development it's liable to be a better alternative to uranium. What you said is all true, however you're citing an experimental reactor; things just aren't magically perfect, sadly.
To quote one of your articles: It was 15MWe, 46 MWt, and was used to develop and test a wide variety of fuels and machinery over its lifetime. Its Helium outlet temperature was 950�C, but fuel temperature instabilities occurred during operation with locally far to high temperatures. As a consequence the whole reactor vessel became heavily contaminated by Cs-137 and Sr-90 [1]. Concerning beta-contamination AVR is the highest contaminated nuclear installation worldwide as AVR management confirmed 2001
Notice the part about it being used to test a wide variety of fuels and machinery? Also the fuel temperature instabilities? That's what caused the Cs-137 and Sr-90 contamination, as noted above. A reactor that's properly designed (with properly fabricated fuel) won't have the disadvantages of a test reactor, and shouldn't have that contamination. I'm not saying it's perfect now, but controlling those instabilities shouldn't be an issue, especially in light of salt or liquid fuel possibilities. Furthermore, what about MSR? It's not a pebble bed; it's molten. That itself should even out the fuel temperature instabilities a little, just the liquid fuel based system.
You raise a very valid point about Thorium, however I think one instance of a test reactor hardly justifies dinging the entire concept because the initial reactor wasn't designed well (see the cracked bottom of the AVR...), but rather it serves as a basis for future designs. Also, what about India planning to use thorium? They're not approaching this with guesswork-- there's clear advantages to using it over uranium. Differences in opinion I guess, but hey, to each his own.
EDIT: Also, I know my initial wording was a little fuzzy; what I meant to say was PBR with uranium, and MSR with thorium-- at least for now.
I know thorium doesn't have an awesome past, especially in early development. That said, I think with more development it's liable to be a better alternative to uranium. What you said is all true, however you're citing an experimental reactor; things just aren't magically perfect, sadly.
To quote one of your articles: It was 15MWe, 46 MWt, and was used to develop and test a wide variety of fuels and machinery over its lifetime. Its Helium outlet temperature was 950�C, but fuel temperature instabilities occurred during operation with locally far to high temperatures. As a consequence the whole reactor vessel became heavily contaminated by Cs-137 and Sr-90 [1]. Concerning beta-contamination AVR is the highest contaminated nuclear installation worldwide as AVR management confirmed 2001
Notice the part about it being used to test a wide variety of fuels and machinery? Also the fuel temperature instabilities? That's what caused the Cs-137 and Sr-90 contamination, as noted above. A reactor that's properly designed (with properly fabricated fuel) won't have the disadvantages of a test reactor, and shouldn't have that contamination. I'm not saying it's perfect now, but controlling those instabilities shouldn't be an issue, especially in light of salt or liquid fuel possibilities. Furthermore, what about MSR? It's not a pebble bed; it's molten. That itself should even out the fuel temperature instabilities a little, just the liquid fuel based system.
You raise a very valid point about Thorium, however I think one instance of a test reactor hardly justifies dinging the entire concept because the initial reactor wasn't designed well (see the cracked bottom of the AVR...), but rather it serves as a basis for future designs. Also, what about India planning to use thorium? They're not approaching this with guesswork-- there's clear advantages to using it over uranium. Differences in opinion I guess, but hey, to each his own.
EDIT: Also, I know my initial wording was a little fuzzy; what I meant to say was PBR with uranium, and MSR with thorium-- at least for now.
leekohler
Mar 28, 10:01 AM
And I doubt you'd say, "Hi. I'm Bill McEnaney and I'm heterosexual. Pleased to meet you."
So I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there.
Exactly. I didn't get it either.
So I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there.
Exactly. I didn't get it either.
shawnce
Sep 26, 11:01 AM
My 2.66GHz MacPro doesn't use all four cores except on rare occassions (e.g. benchmarks, quicktime, handbrake, etc.) and even then it doesn't peg them all.
In other words your average work load doesn't contain enough concurrent work items that are CPU bound.
What I'm most interested in is offloading OpenGL to a core, the GUI to another core, etc. ...some what a nonsensical statement...
Threads of work are spread across available cores automatically. If a thread is ready to run and a core is idle then that thread will run on that core.
Aspects of the "UI" frameworks are multithread and will automatically utilize one or more cores (in some cases the frameworks increase the number of threads they use based on how many cores exist in the system). In other words the UI will already potentially use more then one core on a multi-core system.
The same can happen with OpenGL either now... say if the game developer for example utilizes one or more threads to calculate the game world state and a second thread to call into OpenGL to render that game world ...or by enabling the multithread OpenGL render (only available on Mac Pro systems at this time).
Of course that assumes that the tasks you run are CPU intensive enough to even begin to consume compute resources available to you in new systems... in the end you should measure overall throughput of the work load you want to do, not how utilized your individual core are when doing that work load.
In other words your average work load doesn't contain enough concurrent work items that are CPU bound.
What I'm most interested in is offloading OpenGL to a core, the GUI to another core, etc. ...some what a nonsensical statement...
Threads of work are spread across available cores automatically. If a thread is ready to run and a core is idle then that thread will run on that core.
Aspects of the "UI" frameworks are multithread and will automatically utilize one or more cores (in some cases the frameworks increase the number of threads they use based on how many cores exist in the system). In other words the UI will already potentially use more then one core on a multi-core system.
The same can happen with OpenGL either now... say if the game developer for example utilizes one or more threads to calculate the game world state and a second thread to call into OpenGL to render that game world ...or by enabling the multithread OpenGL render (only available on Mac Pro systems at this time).
Of course that assumes that the tasks you run are CPU intensive enough to even begin to consume compute resources available to you in new systems... in the end you should measure overall throughput of the work load you want to do, not how utilized your individual core are when doing that work load.
amaxware
Nov 3, 11:26 AM
To be more clear...
Mac Pro with 1 dualcore Xeon?
A whole line of Mac Pro's then
2 cores
4 cores
8 cores
Mac Pro with 1 dualcore Xeon?
A whole line of Mac Pro's then
2 cores
4 cores
8 cores
balamw
Apr 11, 11:05 AM
Would it be considered switching if I bought the mini? I"ll still have a few laptops which I'll be using with XP, but then again; I can just VNC to the OSX mac mini
Many of us maintain multiple machines or run Windows as well as OS X.
I think you can define a switcher as someone who, given the choice of performing a task either on one platform or the other that either could do, will more often than not pick the Mac using OS X.
B
Many of us maintain multiple machines or run Windows as well as OS X.
I think you can define a switcher as someone who, given the choice of performing a task either on one platform or the other that either could do, will more often than not pick the Mac using OS X.
B
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 10:16 AM
I don't know, I don't have any answers. It's easier to destroy than create.
A few European posters have backed up my assessments tho, about Europeans being less likely to be challenged on their beliefs. In fact, you're more likely to be viewed as odd if you profess a strong Christian belief.
Maybe deep down I'm an atheist too, and I'm just entertaining the notion of agnosticism as a kind of nod to the great debt we owe Judaism and Christianity. If it wasn't for those two faiths which allowed for reformations (such a thing would be impossible under, say, Islam) then secular Western democracies would be vastly different.
Don't forget, many of the batshit crazy rules that a lot of Christians are meant to follow are actually interpretations of the clergy, rather than being derived from the Bible. This was (along with papal bulls, simony, etc) what helped spur the creation of protestantism which did away with a lot of the incomprehensible dross inherent in Catholicism and tried instead to get back to the most fundamental message in the Bible.
If Europe had succumbed to the advance of Islam, if Vienna had fallen in the 17th century things likely would be very different today. Europe would have produced as many Nobel Prize winners as the entire Islamic World
A few European posters have backed up my assessments tho, about Europeans being less likely to be challenged on their beliefs. In fact, you're more likely to be viewed as odd if you profess a strong Christian belief.
Maybe deep down I'm an atheist too, and I'm just entertaining the notion of agnosticism as a kind of nod to the great debt we owe Judaism and Christianity. If it wasn't for those two faiths which allowed for reformations (such a thing would be impossible under, say, Islam) then secular Western democracies would be vastly different.
Don't forget, many of the batshit crazy rules that a lot of Christians are meant to follow are actually interpretations of the clergy, rather than being derived from the Bible. This was (along with papal bulls, simony, etc) what helped spur the creation of protestantism which did away with a lot of the incomprehensible dross inherent in Catholicism and tried instead to get back to the most fundamental message in the Bible.
If Europe had succumbed to the advance of Islam, if Vienna had fallen in the 17th century things likely would be very different today. Europe would have produced as many Nobel Prize winners as the entire Islamic World
Amazing Iceman
May 2, 09:27 AM
How stupid does a user needs to be in order to install, run and then enter credit card information into an application that pops up by itself?
:eek:
:eek:
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:41 AM
If Nintendo doesn't adapt, it could be big trouble for them. I've seen the 3DS (http://photics.com/nintendo-3ds-a-surprising-disappointment) and I'm not impressed. I think the iPhone 4 is a much better portable gaming machine.
I've just read the linked article... cannot stop laughing at
"Closing one of my eyes would also cancel the [3D] effect"
You know how stereoscopic vision works, right?
I've just read the linked article... cannot stop laughing at
"Closing one of my eyes would also cancel the [3D] effect"
You know how stereoscopic vision works, right?
AP_piano295
Apr 26, 01:27 PM
Not all religion is about the belief in God. In Buddhism (http://http://buddhismbeliefs.org/), it doesn't matter one way or the other if God exists or not. In many ways, my thinking follows the Buddhist way. By it's very definition (http://http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion), atheism can be considered a religion. #2 a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
Atheist believe in the non-existence of God; some as fervently as Christians believe in one.
As for trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. Many men and women, much smarter and better qualified than me, have tried. All have failed. I don't bother with the impossible.;)
I'm getting tired of shooting down this massive and prevalent mis-conception over and over again so I'll just copy paste my post from the "why are there so many atheists" thread.
For a start atheism (ass I see it) is not a belief system, I don't even like to use the term atheist because it grants religion(s) a much higher status than I think it deserves. The term atheism gives the impression that I have purposefully decided NOT to believe in god or religion
I have not chosen not to believe in god or god(s). I just have no reason to believe that they exist because I have seen nothing which suggests their existence.
I don't claim to understand how the universe/matter/energy/life came to be, but the ancient Greeks didn't understand lighting. The fact that they didn't understand lighting made Zeus no more real and electricity no less real. The fact that I do not understand abiogenesis (the formation of living matter from non living matter) does not mean that it is beyond understanding.
The fact that there is much currently beyond the scope of human understanding in no way suggests the existence of god.
In much the same way that one's inability to see through a closed door doesn't suggest that the room beyond is filled with leprechauns.
A lack of information does not arbitrarily suggest the nature of the lacking knowledge. Any speculation which isn't based upon available information is simply meaningless speculation, nothing more.
Atheism is no more a religion than failing to believe in leprechauns is a religion..:rolleyes:
Atheist believe in the non-existence of God; some as fervently as Christians believe in one.
As for trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. Many men and women, much smarter and better qualified than me, have tried. All have failed. I don't bother with the impossible.;)
I'm getting tired of shooting down this massive and prevalent mis-conception over and over again so I'll just copy paste my post from the "why are there so many atheists" thread.
For a start atheism (ass I see it) is not a belief system, I don't even like to use the term atheist because it grants religion(s) a much higher status than I think it deserves. The term atheism gives the impression that I have purposefully decided NOT to believe in god or religion
I have not chosen not to believe in god or god(s). I just have no reason to believe that they exist because I have seen nothing which suggests their existence.
I don't claim to understand how the universe/matter/energy/life came to be, but the ancient Greeks didn't understand lighting. The fact that they didn't understand lighting made Zeus no more real and electricity no less real. The fact that I do not understand abiogenesis (the formation of living matter from non living matter) does not mean that it is beyond understanding.
The fact that there is much currently beyond the scope of human understanding in no way suggests the existence of god.
In much the same way that one's inability to see through a closed door doesn't suggest that the room beyond is filled with leprechauns.
A lack of information does not arbitrarily suggest the nature of the lacking knowledge. Any speculation which isn't based upon available information is simply meaningless speculation, nothing more.
Atheism is no more a religion than failing to believe in leprechauns is a religion..:rolleyes:
puuukeey
Aug 29, 04:13 PM
Branding != values
Zen packaging != Green company
Artsy propaganda != artist friendly
people in black turtle neck != leftist zen hipsters
This being said. computers are not the biggest ewaist problem. We should be scared of CDs. the very definition of a good CD is the opposite of biodegradable.
Zen packaging != Green company
Artsy propaganda != artist friendly
people in black turtle neck != leftist zen hipsters
This being said. computers are not the biggest ewaist problem. We should be scared of CDs. the very definition of a good CD is the opposite of biodegradable.
blackburn
Apr 9, 04:29 PM
Real gamers won't use apple gear (for gaming at least). I don't really like the online game craze. You can't borrow games from friends or even trade them (yeah more profit for the industry).
Since my game pc died I've bought an psp to play a few games once in a while, and not an ipod touch since it doesn't have any friggin' buttons in it. And macs just suck too much at gaming (looking at toasty imacs), in here the only thing that keeps kids wanting an iDevice it's because it's cool and having an apple thing means that your either an hipster or an rich (or broke with lots of debts).
Long live the moments of the game boy, hell I still play some game boy games in my psp with an emulator:D
Since my game pc died I've bought an psp to play a few games once in a while, and not an ipod touch since it doesn't have any friggin' buttons in it. And macs just suck too much at gaming (looking at toasty imacs), in here the only thing that keeps kids wanting an iDevice it's because it's cool and having an apple thing means that your either an hipster or an rich (or broke with lots of debts).
Long live the moments of the game boy, hell I still play some game boy games in my psp with an emulator:D
R.Perez
Mar 13, 03:21 PM
We don't need nuclear, or coal or oil for that matter.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
Stop saying nuclear is "clean", its not. Not only is the mining process horrible for the environment, there is still the issue of radioactive waste. These proposals to somehow shoot the waste into space, or store in the ocean are absolutely outlandish and ridiculous.
If we combined large solar arrays with wind, and tidal power, plus requiring that solar panels also be installed on all new home and apartment construction, we could easily meet our electricity needs with little environmental impact.
The largest issue here is cost, but when you factor in the long term economic cost of global warming or ecological collapse, really we are talking pennies.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
Stop saying nuclear is "clean", its not. Not only is the mining process horrible for the environment, there is still the issue of radioactive waste. These proposals to somehow shoot the waste into space, or store in the ocean are absolutely outlandish and ridiculous.
If we combined large solar arrays with wind, and tidal power, plus requiring that solar panels also be installed on all new home and apartment construction, we could easily meet our electricity needs with little environmental impact.
The largest issue here is cost, but when you factor in the long term economic cost of global warming or ecological collapse, really we are talking pennies.
DeepDish
Aug 29, 11:22 AM
My family, two parents and two kids, have purchased 6 ipods over the years.
Replaced batteries on two of them.
Never thrown any of them away.
Still use all of them. Why would anyone throw an out dated ipod away?
Replaced batteries on two of them.
Never thrown any of them away.
Still use all of them. Why would anyone throw an out dated ipod away?
citizenzen
Apr 23, 11:07 PM
Perhaps you should define atheism for me.
I was under the impression it was the belief no god(s) existed. Which would then lead to someone with atheistic beliefs affirming the veracity of the statement "there are no god(s)."
As I said a few posts back, I have rarely (never) encountered somebody who makes that claim.
At that other forum (that I left because the level of discussion was so poor) there were a number of posts where people linked to examples of what they called "fundamentalist atheists".
Yet, in every case, those atheists went out of their way to state that they don't know ultimately whether a God or Gods exist, only that there is no proof of their existence. If you can find an atheist who claims "There is no such thing as God," I'll say you found an idiot who likes to claim knowledge they can't possess.
So my definition of an atheist would not be someone who claims to have disproved God, but one who is still waiting for you to prove yours.
Edit: and then I saw Apple OC's post. Okay. At least one atheist fundamentalist exists.
I was under the impression it was the belief no god(s) existed. Which would then lead to someone with atheistic beliefs affirming the veracity of the statement "there are no god(s)."
As I said a few posts back, I have rarely (never) encountered somebody who makes that claim.
At that other forum (that I left because the level of discussion was so poor) there were a number of posts where people linked to examples of what they called "fundamentalist atheists".
Yet, in every case, those atheists went out of their way to state that they don't know ultimately whether a God or Gods exist, only that there is no proof of their existence. If you can find an atheist who claims "There is no such thing as God," I'll say you found an idiot who likes to claim knowledge they can't possess.
So my definition of an atheist would not be someone who claims to have disproved God, but one who is still waiting for you to prove yours.
Edit: and then I saw Apple OC's post. Okay. At least one atheist fundamentalist exists.
maxspivak
Sep 12, 03:37 PM
If the want to move into the den or living room, or better yet the home theater, they need more functionality for iTV. As described, it's more of a client for iTunes. Sure, it will automatically download and play movies and songs. But...
Quality: there are differences in iPod quality and home theater / big stereo system. I can happily accept lossy compression for iPod. Not so for multi-thousand-$$$ stereo system. Give me lossless compression from ITMS.
Same goes for movies. I don't want near-DVD quality stretched to my 120" screen. Even with a high-quality video scaler. I want HD - blueray or hd-dvd. I can rent hi-def disks from netflix today. Why, why would I settle for quality worse than what DVDs gave me for the last 10 years???
At least give me an optical disk. Better yet, break some new ground, give me a combo BluRay / HD-DVD drive!!!
Add's functionality -- how 'bout a PVR.
Will I buy one -- probably. But I expected something abit more radical than what they showed.
Quality: there are differences in iPod quality and home theater / big stereo system. I can happily accept lossy compression for iPod. Not so for multi-thousand-$$$ stereo system. Give me lossless compression from ITMS.
Same goes for movies. I don't want near-DVD quality stretched to my 120" screen. Even with a high-quality video scaler. I want HD - blueray or hd-dvd. I can rent hi-def disks from netflix today. Why, why would I settle for quality worse than what DVDs gave me for the last 10 years???
At least give me an optical disk. Better yet, break some new ground, give me a combo BluRay / HD-DVD drive!!!
Add's functionality -- how 'bout a PVR.
Will I buy one -- probably. But I expected something abit more radical than what they showed.
