Silentwave
Jul 12, 04:08 PM
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
Fine. tell me where we can get everything but the processor for $200 and we have a deal. Conroe doesn't have anything above 2.66 that isn't an extreme edition. So your next stop is the X6800 2.93GHz Extreme Edition- $999 per chip.
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
Fine. tell me where we can get everything but the processor for $200 and we have a deal. Conroe doesn't have anything above 2.66 that isn't an extreme edition. So your next stop is the X6800 2.93GHz Extreme Edition- $999 per chip.
more...
Tulse
Mar 20, 10:51 AM
Yeah, you can't. Instead of being out protesting you are stuck at your computer dissing IP geeks. Mmm...Sad and hypocritical. Now that's sad.Stage, I work for a charity -- I think I'm doing my part.
People can certainly disagree over whether DRM is appropriate or not. But like it or not, it is the law (copyright law, DMCA, and EULA law). You can break that law as a form of protest if you like, but, as eric_n_dfw says, the way to do that is by making your lawbreaking public, to be willing to accept the consequences of the lawbreaking, and thus work within the system. That's precisely what the civil rights movement did, that's what Gandhi did, that's what Thoreau wrote about. Anything else isn't protest -- it's no more "noble" than sneaking into movies for free.
Of course, there are a multitude of other ways to fight the law, including financially supporting the EFF and other like organizations, contacting your lawmakers, contacting recording companies, and, most effective, not buying products you feel restrict your rights. If folks were doing all of these things, then I'd have some respect for the notion that this is a moral and political issue. But as far as I can see, most people stripping DRM out of iTunes aren't doing it out of protest, but simply to make their lives easier, even if that impacts on the rights of the music writers and creators.
Protest and political change almost always involves sacrifice -- of time, of money, even in extreme cases of personal freedom (as in being jailed). If people aren't facing those kind of sacrifices, then I have serious doubts that they're actually "protesting".
People can certainly disagree over whether DRM is appropriate or not. But like it or not, it is the law (copyright law, DMCA, and EULA law). You can break that law as a form of protest if you like, but, as eric_n_dfw says, the way to do that is by making your lawbreaking public, to be willing to accept the consequences of the lawbreaking, and thus work within the system. That's precisely what the civil rights movement did, that's what Gandhi did, that's what Thoreau wrote about. Anything else isn't protest -- it's no more "noble" than sneaking into movies for free.
Of course, there are a multitude of other ways to fight the law, including financially supporting the EFF and other like organizations, contacting your lawmakers, contacting recording companies, and, most effective, not buying products you feel restrict your rights. If folks were doing all of these things, then I'd have some respect for the notion that this is a moral and political issue. But as far as I can see, most people stripping DRM out of iTunes aren't doing it out of protest, but simply to make their lives easier, even if that impacts on the rights of the music writers and creators.
Protest and political change almost always involves sacrifice -- of time, of money, even in extreme cases of personal freedom (as in being jailed). If people aren't facing those kind of sacrifices, then I have serious doubts that they're actually "protesting".
more...
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 12:54 AM
Tampering with the text is not, per se, the real issue. What Huntn us probably referring to is the selective composition of the whole. The Protestant bible typically has 66 books. Some other versions can have as many as 81
I'm aware of ancient disputes about what books belong in the Bible. Eusebius describes some in his Ecclesiastical History But one this is plain to me: The Third Council of Carthage's canon included the titles of the Old Testament books that Protestants call the "Apocrypha." If you look in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, you'll see them in it.
Here's the Third Council of Carthage's canon (http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html). Meanwhile, I need to read the documents Sydde suggests. By the way, if you read the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus, a council that met in 431 A.D., you'll know that council believed it taught infallibly. That council's belief is relevant because the Carthage council met in 397 A.D., only about 35 years before the Ephesene council and because the Ephesene council's Fathers would have thought the ancient Church had the authority to determine infallibly what books were canonical. Here's a like to the documents the Council of Ephesus wrote (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.html).
I'm aware of ancient disputes about what books belong in the Bible. Eusebius describes some in his Ecclesiastical History But one this is plain to me: The Third Council of Carthage's canon included the titles of the Old Testament books that Protestants call the "Apocrypha." If you look in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, you'll see them in it.
Here's the Third Council of Carthage's canon (http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html). Meanwhile, I need to read the documents Sydde suggests. By the way, if you read the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus, a council that met in 431 A.D., you'll know that council believed it taught infallibly. That council's belief is relevant because the Carthage council met in 397 A.D., only about 35 years before the Ephesene council and because the Ephesene council's Fathers would have thought the ancient Church had the authority to determine infallibly what books were canonical. Here's a like to the documents the Council of Ephesus wrote (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.html).
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 20, 01:10 PM
That's why I'm ripping my DVDs in H.264/AAC instead of the ever-popular DivX/Xvid or any other AVI/Quicktime nightmare. Too many CODECs.
Hmmm, that makes me wonder if iTunes in a later version will be able to rip DVD's as well as Cd's.
Hmmm, that makes me wonder if iTunes in a later version will be able to rip DVD's as well as Cd's.
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.
more...
Will_reed
Jul 11, 10:12 PM
I wonder if this will be good enough to cut my 4k footage off my yet to purchase red camera. How ever I think the quad g5 would be enough.
more...
joepunk
Mar 15, 12:52 AM
Someone has a Geiger Counter reading set up in Tokyo (I assume that is the location). If someone can explain this that would be wonderful.
LINK (http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/geiger_index.html)
http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/uploaddata/radiation.jpg (http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/uploaddata/radiation.jpg)
LINK (http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/geiger_index.html)
http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/uploaddata/radiation.jpg (http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/uploaddata/radiation.jpg)
more...
Tarzanman
Mar 18, 08:45 AM
Some of the responses on this thread are really amusing.
The people who are defending AT&T's actions are either astroturfing shills, or dolts.
Here's a newsflash: Just because you put something into a contract doesn't make it legal or make it fair. What if AT&T stipulated that they were allowed to come by your house and give you a wedgie every time you checked your voicemail...? Would you still be screaming about how its "justified" because its written on some lop-sided, legalese-ridden piece of paper?
The way that the current data plans are priced and more importantly *marketed* to customers, charging for tethering is double charging for data.
The correct thing to do would be to have multiple (at least 3) tiers of data and stop differentiating between tethered service. If the tetherers are using too much data then charge them appropriately. What AT&T is currently doing is telling you that you can use up to 2GB of data, and then trying to charge you extra when they see that you might actually use that much (due to tethering).
The people who are defending AT&T's actions are either astroturfing shills, or dolts.
Here's a newsflash: Just because you put something into a contract doesn't make it legal or make it fair. What if AT&T stipulated that they were allowed to come by your house and give you a wedgie every time you checked your voicemail...? Would you still be screaming about how its "justified" because its written on some lop-sided, legalese-ridden piece of paper?
The way that the current data plans are priced and more importantly *marketed* to customers, charging for tethering is double charging for data.
The correct thing to do would be to have multiple (at least 3) tiers of data and stop differentiating between tethered service. If the tetherers are using too much data then charge them appropriately. What AT&T is currently doing is telling you that you can use up to 2GB of data, and then trying to charge you extra when they see that you might actually use that much (due to tethering).
more...
aswitcher
Jul 12, 03:46 PM
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
4 ram slots so I can get 2 gig cheap or 4 gig if I want it.
2 x FW 400s well.
BT/AX standard of course.
Frontrow IR port.
Optical audio in/out.
User replacable Ram, HDD, Graphics card(?).
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
4 ram slots so I can get 2 gig cheap or 4 gig if I want it.
2 x FW 400s well.
BT/AX standard of course.
Frontrow IR port.
Optical audio in/out.
User replacable Ram, HDD, Graphics card(?).
more...
Piggie
Apr 9, 06:53 PM
I can't see how Apple making a Bluetooth controller, which, say looked a bit like a PS3/360 controller, and selling it as an optional accessory could be in any way a negative thing.
No-one would be forced to buy it, and no devs would be forced to support it.
Apple could insist every game have on screen controls for people who wanted to only use the touch screen for gaming.
But apps could support the external controller also.
This could only be win win for Apple and users.
It's adding additional functionality and adding the possibility for more advanced games to be developed for the device in the future, esp as the speed will only get better as new iPad's come out.
Not doing so, almost feels like they wish to cripple the device forever.
Why would anyone say they would not want Apple to give users and devs the "Option" of something like this? Not force people to use it, but sell it as an "Option"
If they do this then the iPad had a chance of becoming a genuine serious gaming device in the home in the long term. If they insist forever to only support touch screen, then the iPad will always remain that thing which plays cheap and simple games.
No-one would be forced to buy it, and no devs would be forced to support it.
Apple could insist every game have on screen controls for people who wanted to only use the touch screen for gaming.
But apps could support the external controller also.
This could only be win win for Apple and users.
It's adding additional functionality and adding the possibility for more advanced games to be developed for the device in the future, esp as the speed will only get better as new iPad's come out.
Not doing so, almost feels like they wish to cripple the device forever.
Why would anyone say they would not want Apple to give users and devs the "Option" of something like this? Not force people to use it, but sell it as an "Option"
If they do this then the iPad had a chance of becoming a genuine serious gaming device in the home in the long term. If they insist forever to only support touch screen, then the iPad will always remain that thing which plays cheap and simple games.
NathanMuir
Apr 24, 12:08 PM
And Fear.
IMO, mainstream religion hasn't been about fear since the Middle/ Dark Ages.
Power and control? Sure, depending on your view of religion.
IMO, mainstream religion hasn't been about fear since the Middle/ Dark Ages.
Power and control? Sure, depending on your view of religion.
digitalbiker
Sep 24, 05:38 PM
It most certainly is not of some souped up Airport Extreme. That was what was widely rumoured before the Showtime presentation, and it turned out to be completely false. Whatever the debate of the precise capabilities of the iTV may be, the device demo'd couldn't be further from being an Airport Extreme if it tried.
OK, believe what you want but you must be watching a different ShowTime presentation and reading different reviews than I have been reading. Your discription is just not factual.
Everything I have seen describes the iTV as a souped up airport extreme that uses FrontRow to remote control an iTunes streaming device (i.e. computer) on the network. The product fits nicely in the model SJ has of a computer centric universe or digital hub. The use of the hard drive is most likely for cache to buffer the stream on an unstable 80211 connection.
OK, believe what you want but you must be watching a different ShowTime presentation and reading different reviews than I have been reading. Your discription is just not factual.
Everything I have seen describes the iTV as a souped up airport extreme that uses FrontRow to remote control an iTunes streaming device (i.e. computer) on the network. The product fits nicely in the model SJ has of a computer centric universe or digital hub. The use of the hard drive is most likely for cache to buffer the stream on an unstable 80211 connection.
AidenShaw
Sep 24, 10:45 PM
The use of the hard drive is most likely for cache to buffer the stream on an unstable 80211 connection.
Considering all the posts to this point, I'm inclined to believe that the "hard drive" might just be some flash memory.
Iger is not a super-geek - he could easily have said "hard drive" to mean some non-volatile memory.
In other words, the iTV is not a media hub - but it is able to do some buffering of the content.
Considering all the posts to this point, I'm inclined to believe that the "hard drive" might just be some flash memory.
Iger is not a super-geek - he could easily have said "hard drive" to mean some non-volatile memory.
In other words, the iTV is not a media hub - but it is able to do some buffering of the content.
jlasoon
Apr 8, 10:28 PM
Also, the next Apple TV will be...a fully fledged games console in disguise.:cool:
My thoughts exactly. It almost has to be the next step for :apple:
My thoughts exactly. It almost has to be the next step for :apple:
jmcrutch
Mar 18, 09:31 AM
sounds like someone on here thinks he's a lawya! Must have stayed in a holiday in last night.
more...
Rt&Dzine
Apr 26, 05:50 PM
Or it vanished in a miracle.
For the bread has risen.
That is too ******* funny!
For the bread has risen.
That is too ******* funny!
joepunk
Mar 11, 11:17 AM
From BBC News Live Twitter update thingy (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698)
1708: Nuclear physicist Dr Walt Patterson tells the BBC it sounds like there is a "serious problem" at the Fukushima-Daiichi plant. "It's the sort of thing that nuclear engineers have nightmares about," he says. "If it is not resolved in the next few hours it will get serious. If the core is uncovered, then those rods at the top may get hot enough to melt themselves."
1706: The Tokyo Electric Power Company has said the pressure inside the No. 1 reactor at its Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant has been rising, with the risk of a radiation leak, according to the Jiji Press news agency. Tepco planned to take measures to release the pressure, the report added. The reactor's cooling system began to malfunction after the earthquake. People living close to the plant were later evacuated as a precaution.
1708: Nuclear physicist Dr Walt Patterson tells the BBC it sounds like there is a "serious problem" at the Fukushima-Daiichi plant. "It's the sort of thing that nuclear engineers have nightmares about," he says. "If it is not resolved in the next few hours it will get serious. If the core is uncovered, then those rods at the top may get hot enough to melt themselves."
1706: The Tokyo Electric Power Company has said the pressure inside the No. 1 reactor at its Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant has been rising, with the risk of a radiation leak, according to the Jiji Press news agency. Tepco planned to take measures to release the pressure, the report added. The reactor's cooling system began to malfunction after the earthquake. People living close to the plant were later evacuated as a precaution.
more...
alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by gopher
Oh really? Show me where PCs can do 18 billion floating point calculations a second!
Haven't we been over this before?
Oh really? Show me where PCs can do 18 billion floating point calculations a second!
Haven't we been over this before?
Huntn
Apr 25, 08:41 AM
As soon as you start down the slippery slope of stating that some things in the Bible (I use the Bible as an example but this applies equally to all religions) are not true (i.e the world was created in seven days) or that certain parts are meant to be interpreted by the reader (who's interpretation is correct?) you lose all credibility. If you are so determined to change your religion so that it fits in with modern science what is the point of being religious?
This is an excellent point. If you go with the all or nothing, then as soon as anything is suspect in your favorite holy document, then it all is. If any logic prevails then one must admit they don't know as much as they thought they did. Unfortunately this area is not a place where logic shines.
Part of the problem is that God has always been a terrible communicator. ;)
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
When someone talks about "not believing" my initial knee jerk reaction is to think this is a threshold as strong as "belief" but in actuality it's simply anything short of reaching the threshold of believing. In my case instead of saying "I don't believe" I think it is more accurate to say "I don't know."
This is an excellent point. If you go with the all or nothing, then as soon as anything is suspect in your favorite holy document, then it all is. If any logic prevails then one must admit they don't know as much as they thought they did. Unfortunately this area is not a place where logic shines.
Part of the problem is that God has always been a terrible communicator. ;)
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
When someone talks about "not believing" my initial knee jerk reaction is to think this is a threshold as strong as "belief" but in actuality it's simply anything short of reaching the threshold of believing. In my case instead of saying "I don't believe" I think it is more accurate to say "I don't know."
Don't panic
Mar 14, 11:03 AM
i find hard to believe that the casualties are only in the 1000-3000 range.
Naturally, I hope they are right and unfortunately that still is a lot of people, but with the news of tens of towns and villages completely razed in densely populated areas I am amazed if the numbers remain so (relatively) low.
it would be a true testament on how well-prepared they were.
Naturally, I hope they are right and unfortunately that still is a lot of people, but with the news of tens of towns and villages completely razed in densely populated areas I am amazed if the numbers remain so (relatively) low.
it would be a true testament on how well-prepared they were.
more...
sisyphus
Sep 20, 11:01 PM
First things first, I presume that the HD is there to put a great deal of stuff easily in reach. When SJ did the demo, the unit had all the album art/DVD covers on there as well as a synopsis etc... That could all be easily stored on the "iTV" reducing the need to access it all the time.
Obviously it will also act as a temporary cache for downloaded movies/online trailers. I suspect the biggest use of the HD will be the ability to buy/rent movies directly from the unit.
A bit of a "far out" idea is maybe to use the unit as a pseudo PVR in the future. If you were to say, pay $5 to watch the "insert big sporting event final here" online. You could pause it and use the HD to store data while you had to go use the facilities because you really shouldn't have finished off that Super Big Gulp before the game even started.
An even better use would be a rental download that would stay on the iTV for a week prior to being "blipped".
Apple doesn't want a PVR they want better than PVR. Instant demand to anything! However Apple isn't big enough for that. Instead all of the media companies will do it for them. Why? Greed, pure and simple greed. The thought of making money for no additional work is too lucrative for them. Why bother punchine out DVDs when you can send the master to Apple. Let them encode it and handle all the distribution problems. Look as Disney. They made $1,000,000 in one week for doing NOTHING. Why do you thing WalMart is scared (when was the last time you heard that?) Walmart succeeds because they force the best price from manufacturers. Someone has figured out the ultimate price reduction on the product - no physical media period! There is no way to undercut that.
Studios aren't dumb either. This is actually a way for them to increase profits! As the price of purchase goes down, more people will buy. However they were able to reduce the price without reducing profits! (This is my assumption that the profit on each download is = to the DVD profit). Now guess what. The studio can actually increase their profits. Lets say for the real movie buffs they could release a $2 "Extras" download that would contain most the of stuff on DVDs that most people never actually watch. The hard core people would jump on it. The average people would just be happy with their basic movie.
The next step is HD. Who is really going to care about HD-DVD vs. Blue-Ray if you could just download it in HD and store it on your umm... HD. :D Apple's near term goal is to replace your DVD player. However the longer term goal is to make the Mac your entire content delivery system.
That being said in the near term the iTV is perfect for me IF Apple allows movie rentals. I think the reason that they didn't debut the movie rentals is the lack of a shipping iTV. I can just hear SJ at MWSF saying that the "most demanded feature for the movie downloads and iTV is rentals." Unfortunately living in Canada means I'll be waiting until it they are playing ice hockey in hell for this service to make it north.
At home we have several TVs. If each TV were to (eventually) have an iTV it would mean access to all my media anywhere in the house. Should somebody like Elgato or TiVo be really smart and find an extremely simple way of meshing their products with the iTV I could access all of my data from anywhere in the house anytime. I'm just waiting to see where all of the pieces will be by January. I suspect they'll be far more cohesive than most people here expect.
Obviously it will also act as a temporary cache for downloaded movies/online trailers. I suspect the biggest use of the HD will be the ability to buy/rent movies directly from the unit.
A bit of a "far out" idea is maybe to use the unit as a pseudo PVR in the future. If you were to say, pay $5 to watch the "insert big sporting event final here" online. You could pause it and use the HD to store data while you had to go use the facilities because you really shouldn't have finished off that Super Big Gulp before the game even started.
An even better use would be a rental download that would stay on the iTV for a week prior to being "blipped".
Apple doesn't want a PVR they want better than PVR. Instant demand to anything! However Apple isn't big enough for that. Instead all of the media companies will do it for them. Why? Greed, pure and simple greed. The thought of making money for no additional work is too lucrative for them. Why bother punchine out DVDs when you can send the master to Apple. Let them encode it and handle all the distribution problems. Look as Disney. They made $1,000,000 in one week for doing NOTHING. Why do you thing WalMart is scared (when was the last time you heard that?) Walmart succeeds because they force the best price from manufacturers. Someone has figured out the ultimate price reduction on the product - no physical media period! There is no way to undercut that.
Studios aren't dumb either. This is actually a way for them to increase profits! As the price of purchase goes down, more people will buy. However they were able to reduce the price without reducing profits! (This is my assumption that the profit on each download is = to the DVD profit). Now guess what. The studio can actually increase their profits. Lets say for the real movie buffs they could release a $2 "Extras" download that would contain most the of stuff on DVDs that most people never actually watch. The hard core people would jump on it. The average people would just be happy with their basic movie.
The next step is HD. Who is really going to care about HD-DVD vs. Blue-Ray if you could just download it in HD and store it on your umm... HD. :D Apple's near term goal is to replace your DVD player. However the longer term goal is to make the Mac your entire content delivery system.
That being said in the near term the iTV is perfect for me IF Apple allows movie rentals. I think the reason that they didn't debut the movie rentals is the lack of a shipping iTV. I can just hear SJ at MWSF saying that the "most demanded feature for the movie downloads and iTV is rentals." Unfortunately living in Canada means I'll be waiting until it they are playing ice hockey in hell for this service to make it north.
At home we have several TVs. If each TV were to (eventually) have an iTV it would mean access to all my media anywhere in the house. Should somebody like Elgato or TiVo be really smart and find an extremely simple way of meshing their products with the iTV I could access all of my data from anywhere in the house anytime. I'm just waiting to see where all of the pieces will be by January. I suspect they'll be far more cohesive than most people here expect.
Stella
Mar 18, 10:00 AM
This is beyond the mark...
Wish he'd do something useful like cracking WMA.
Wish he'd do something useful like cracking WMA.
more...
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.
more...
neko girl
Mar 24, 11:55 PM
People can BELIEVE whatever they want.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
more...
No comments:
Post a Comment