Gelfin
Mar 27, 10:43 PM
But what if changed thoughts and changed behaviors would make people even happier than than they would be without the changes?
That's a reasonable outcome too, and so long as the patient comes out at peace with himself, no credible psychologist would attempt to force someone to be gay either.
The available evidence about the viability of "conversion" might lead to some skepticism, and an expectation that the patient will "relapse" and return to therapy (something Nicolosi knows quite well), but the therapist ultimately has a responsibility to respect what the patient represents.
Not even Nicolosi tells his clients that they need to change their sexual orientation.
Really? Because this is nothing like anything Nicolosi has ever said publicly. His entire theory is that anyone who is gay is psychologically broken, and that making someone psychologically healthy automatically makes him straight. How could anyone infer it is not his position that his clients need to change their sexual orientation?
He says that NARTH is for people who want to change it.
Or whose parents demand they change it as a condition of parental love.
Besides, what is the threshold for "wanting" to change it? Being gay in this society is a colossal nuisance in many ways. Most of the most secure and confident gay men I've ever met would admit having at some point wished they were straight, just like many minorities sometimes find themselves wishing they were white, or some women occasionally wish they were male. It would be a lot easier, and in the case of homosexuality, often very much easier indeed. It's the only such situation in the modern day where children are actually denied the love of their parents and community and thrown into the streets. Cultural attitudes towards homosexuality make denial almost a given when one starts to realize one's own orientation is not the norm.
If these thoughts are so disruptive that the sufferer's life is impacted, then the sufferer needs therapy, not to make him into what he isn't, but to help him come to terms with himself in whatever way works best for him.
In a video I posted to this discussion, he says that therapy doesn't work well for clients who tell him they want to change because the Bible teaches that they shouldn't have homosexual sex.
And you get from this that he doesn't think people need to change? He's telling people why they are likely to be failures, warning them of attitudes that will make them failures, and preconditioning them to begin the long process of telling counselors what they want to hear.
What that quote says is, "being religious and wanting your religious beliefs to be compatible with your sexual identity is not sufficient. There will never be a compromise between your sexuality and your religion, and the religion cannot be wrong, so you must be, and you will fail if you don't accept that and truly loathe yourself as much as we expect you to. And if you don't, we're here to help."
Bottom line, NARTH calls only one specific outcome a success, and it is for gay people to become no longer gay, irrespective of psychological consequences, because that isn't what's important to them. Eliminating homosexuality is. Although they understand and accept that not all gay people will be receptive to their "treatment," they also believe that all gay people need to be converted. This is psychological quackery.
That's a reasonable outcome too, and so long as the patient comes out at peace with himself, no credible psychologist would attempt to force someone to be gay either.
The available evidence about the viability of "conversion" might lead to some skepticism, and an expectation that the patient will "relapse" and return to therapy (something Nicolosi knows quite well), but the therapist ultimately has a responsibility to respect what the patient represents.
Not even Nicolosi tells his clients that they need to change their sexual orientation.
Really? Because this is nothing like anything Nicolosi has ever said publicly. His entire theory is that anyone who is gay is psychologically broken, and that making someone psychologically healthy automatically makes him straight. How could anyone infer it is not his position that his clients need to change their sexual orientation?
He says that NARTH is for people who want to change it.
Or whose parents demand they change it as a condition of parental love.
Besides, what is the threshold for "wanting" to change it? Being gay in this society is a colossal nuisance in many ways. Most of the most secure and confident gay men I've ever met would admit having at some point wished they were straight, just like many minorities sometimes find themselves wishing they were white, or some women occasionally wish they were male. It would be a lot easier, and in the case of homosexuality, often very much easier indeed. It's the only such situation in the modern day where children are actually denied the love of their parents and community and thrown into the streets. Cultural attitudes towards homosexuality make denial almost a given when one starts to realize one's own orientation is not the norm.
If these thoughts are so disruptive that the sufferer's life is impacted, then the sufferer needs therapy, not to make him into what he isn't, but to help him come to terms with himself in whatever way works best for him.
In a video I posted to this discussion, he says that therapy doesn't work well for clients who tell him they want to change because the Bible teaches that they shouldn't have homosexual sex.
And you get from this that he doesn't think people need to change? He's telling people why they are likely to be failures, warning them of attitudes that will make them failures, and preconditioning them to begin the long process of telling counselors what they want to hear.
What that quote says is, "being religious and wanting your religious beliefs to be compatible with your sexual identity is not sufficient. There will never be a compromise between your sexuality and your religion, and the religion cannot be wrong, so you must be, and you will fail if you don't accept that and truly loathe yourself as much as we expect you to. And if you don't, we're here to help."
Bottom line, NARTH calls only one specific outcome a success, and it is for gay people to become no longer gay, irrespective of psychological consequences, because that isn't what's important to them. Eliminating homosexuality is. Although they understand and accept that not all gay people will be receptive to their "treatment," they also believe that all gay people need to be converted. This is psychological quackery.
AppliedVisual
Oct 6, 11:53 PM
Nope, 2.66 is the official fastest Intel has announced. (And the nice thing about Intel, from a corporate point of view, is that they announce EVERYTHING ahead of time. So we know there won't be a surprise 3 GHz release.)
Yeah for now... But I'm sure we'll see 3GHz and faster as they increase production. All depends on when I finally decide to make my purchase. But the 2.66GHz is probably it... I may go with the 2.33GHz if the price on the 2.66 is to far out of line, but we'll see. Right now, the current 3GHz Mac Pro is $800 more, but to me that would be worth it for that extra edge on my renderings.
Yeah for now... But I'm sure we'll see 3GHz and faster as they increase production. All depends on when I finally decide to make my purchase. But the 2.66GHz is probably it... I may go with the 2.33GHz if the price on the 2.66 is to far out of line, but we'll see. Right now, the current 3GHz Mac Pro is $800 more, but to me that would be worth it for that extra edge on my renderings.
eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 05:34 PM
The trouble with DRM is that it often affects the average Joe consumer more than it hurts those it's intended to stop.Yep. This is true of many laws.
DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.Actually, they get even crazier when you start making derivative works like that. I do video as a hobby and have to be very careful if someone asks me to put a commercial track on the wedding video I'm editting. Technically, I cannot do it without a syncronization license plus royalty payment agreements for each copy sold. Just try to pin down a videographer on the legality of this - it's a HUGE grey area in the fair use clause. Some artists and/or labels (so I've read) won't even let you do it if you are willing to pay for said licenses because they don't want their "art" mixed with someone elses (the video).
The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.Welcome to humanity, were the one jerk always screws it up for the rest of us. :mad:
DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.Actually, they get even crazier when you start making derivative works like that. I do video as a hobby and have to be very careful if someone asks me to put a commercial track on the wedding video I'm editting. Technically, I cannot do it without a syncronization license plus royalty payment agreements for each copy sold. Just try to pin down a videographer on the legality of this - it's a HUGE grey area in the fair use clause. Some artists and/or labels (so I've read) won't even let you do it if you are willing to pay for said licenses because they don't want their "art" mixed with someone elses (the video).
The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.Welcome to humanity, were the one jerk always screws it up for the rest of us. :mad:
Deimo
Jul 11, 11:17 PM
Here's a little list i put together last week of my predictions for the next 6 months or so of a roadmap (whenever merom goes to 800 MHz on its bus, so maybe 9 months)
Portable:
MacBook: Yonah through 1q 667MHz bus Merom thereafter
MacBook Pro: Yonah through 3q2006, 667MHz bus Merom through 1q2007,
800MHz bus Merom thereafter
Desktop:
Mac mini: Yonah through 1q2007, 667MHz bus Merom thereafter
iMac: Yonah through 3q2006, 800MHz bus Conroe thereafter
Mac Pro: 1333MHz bus Woodcrest
Portable:
MacBook: Yonah through 1q 667MHz bus Merom thereafter
MacBook Pro: Yonah through 3q2006, 667MHz bus Merom through 1q2007,
800MHz bus Merom thereafter
Desktop:
Mac mini: Yonah through 1q2007, 667MHz bus Merom thereafter
iMac: Yonah through 3q2006, 800MHz bus Conroe thereafter
Mac Pro: 1333MHz bus Woodcrest
ender land
Apr 23, 10:11 PM
I'm not sure I understand the point in the first part of your post so I'll have to skip that for now. Maybe you can phrase it a different way to help me out. Anyway, the whole "moral" issue has been raised and argued before. In my mind, there are many reasons why, logically, atheists are, by far, more moral then religious people. I'll just throw one out at you: your statement of someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of morals to abide by isn't something I can agree with for many reasons. One, why does one have to have a religious book to have a standard of morals. Atheists can know right and wrong and make laws based on common sense morals. We don't need some made up god to tell us what is right and wrong. Secondly, have you read some of the "morals" in the holy books. If so, and you still follow these rules, you have very low standards for what good morals should be. One needs to look no further then the section on how to treat your slaves in the bible to see this fact!
Ugh, so much ignorance (hopefully unintentional), I don't know where to start...
If you are theistic, clearly it would make sense to base morality off what your God believes. Not doing so would be the equivalent of an atheist not agreeing with the scientific method.
Everything you say is hinged upon the belief religions are all wrong. If this is in fact true, I suppose you having this belief is true. Though you could also debate this back and forth, IF religion is all wrong, any religious morals are therefore created by those who practiced/invented the religion, which means there are far more viewpoints having gone into the creation of such morals.
Thirdly, it doesn't even matter whether the above is true with respect to what you said, even if religion is 100% made up, people who are religious (I'll pick on GWB again since he was by far more practicing Christian than Obama) are still basing their beliefs on something which is written down. This makes them more trustworthy, or perhaps a better word would be predictable. It is unlikely that someone like GWB will suddenly ever go "you know what, I think you're right, it's totally ok to allow abortion" because his beliefs are based on something which will not change. On the other hand, a politician who is completely atheistic has no such 'check' or 'reference' which means you have no idea that their position will not change.
"Common sense morals?" lol! There are so many examples of morals not being "common sense" both inside and outside theistic cultures. These "common sense" morals are only common sense because you personally believe in them, at the current time, given your set of circumstances. It is entirely possible they drastically change over time. A great example is the one you pointed out, slavery. Plenty of people thought it was "common sense" to allow slavery. What changed? Did people suddenly get "more common sense?" It seems likely to me that something like abortion is likely to eventually become a "common sense to outlaw" thing, while gay marriage will become a "wtf does the government care" common sense thing; neither of these is the current state in the United States.
Not to mention, common sense morals more or less is exactly what I am referring to when saying societal morals. The "this is morality as we see it, duh!" type of morality.
Regarding your final point, I am almost positive I have read more of the Bible and understand what it is saying better than you. I am not going to debate a book you seemingly do not know with you, so I will offer this: there is a difference between Old Testament law and the New Testament in terms of how we, ie not Jews living more than 2300 years ago, should interpret them in our daily lives. Not to mention, much of the Old Testament was written to a specific group of people at a specific time (that was a long time ago), which even if New Testament did not "free" us from Old Testament law, that slavery was much different at the time in practice and implementation (see Leviticus 25). Plus if you do want to see how to treat slaves from a Biblical standpoint, in light of Christ, read the book of Philemon in the New Testament, which specifically is written to a slaveowner from Paul.
Ugh, so much ignorance (hopefully unintentional), I don't know where to start...
If you are theistic, clearly it would make sense to base morality off what your God believes. Not doing so would be the equivalent of an atheist not agreeing with the scientific method.
Everything you say is hinged upon the belief religions are all wrong. If this is in fact true, I suppose you having this belief is true. Though you could also debate this back and forth, IF religion is all wrong, any religious morals are therefore created by those who practiced/invented the religion, which means there are far more viewpoints having gone into the creation of such morals.
Thirdly, it doesn't even matter whether the above is true with respect to what you said, even if religion is 100% made up, people who are religious (I'll pick on GWB again since he was by far more practicing Christian than Obama) are still basing their beliefs on something which is written down. This makes them more trustworthy, or perhaps a better word would be predictable. It is unlikely that someone like GWB will suddenly ever go "you know what, I think you're right, it's totally ok to allow abortion" because his beliefs are based on something which will not change. On the other hand, a politician who is completely atheistic has no such 'check' or 'reference' which means you have no idea that their position will not change.
"Common sense morals?" lol! There are so many examples of morals not being "common sense" both inside and outside theistic cultures. These "common sense" morals are only common sense because you personally believe in them, at the current time, given your set of circumstances. It is entirely possible they drastically change over time. A great example is the one you pointed out, slavery. Plenty of people thought it was "common sense" to allow slavery. What changed? Did people suddenly get "more common sense?" It seems likely to me that something like abortion is likely to eventually become a "common sense to outlaw" thing, while gay marriage will become a "wtf does the government care" common sense thing; neither of these is the current state in the United States.
Not to mention, common sense morals more or less is exactly what I am referring to when saying societal morals. The "this is morality as we see it, duh!" type of morality.
Regarding your final point, I am almost positive I have read more of the Bible and understand what it is saying better than you. I am not going to debate a book you seemingly do not know with you, so I will offer this: there is a difference between Old Testament law and the New Testament in terms of how we, ie not Jews living more than 2300 years ago, should interpret them in our daily lives. Not to mention, much of the Old Testament was written to a specific group of people at a specific time (that was a long time ago), which even if New Testament did not "free" us from Old Testament law, that slavery was much different at the time in practice and implementation (see Leviticus 25). Plus if you do want to see how to treat slaves from a Biblical standpoint, in light of Christ, read the book of Philemon in the New Testament, which specifically is written to a slaveowner from Paul.
whoami
Apr 12, 10:38 PM
$300! Makes me think Logic Studio X might be $199.
This is beyond overdue! :eek:
This is beyond overdue! :eek:
roland.g
Sep 20, 10:10 AM
This is good news. When they announced it, I was pretty convinced they weren't talking about a box that required an additional computer, although USB storage or a dedicated server box seemed likely based upon the absense of evidence for an in-built hard disk.
So it's actually confirmed it can be used standalone. The missing piece is complete. This is iTunes for the rest of us. For those who don't want cable, who want to be able to subscribe to (and fund) specific TV shows and order movies on demand, this is for you. No computer required. Go home, flop on the couch, and watch what you want. Want something more powerful? Well, it'll integrate with your computers and presumably if someone wants to create devices that export iTunes libraries, like some sort of networked DVR, then it'll work with that too.
Wonderful. This deserves to be a success.
what r u talking about
So it's actually confirmed it can be used standalone. The missing piece is complete. This is iTunes for the rest of us. For those who don't want cable, who want to be able to subscribe to (and fund) specific TV shows and order movies on demand, this is for you. No computer required. Go home, flop on the couch, and watch what you want. Want something more powerful? Well, it'll integrate with your computers and presumably if someone wants to create devices that export iTunes libraries, like some sort of networked DVR, then it'll work with that too.
Wonderful. This deserves to be a success.
what r u talking about
dr_lha
Sep 12, 03:32 PM
Nice, but I'd need to buy a new TV to use it. My TV doesn't support either Component or HDMI. Would a S-Video output be too much to ask for? I guess maybe they could have a dongle that converts HDMI->S-Video, like I use on my Mac mini right now (DVI -> S-Video).
Timothy
Mar 19, 01:43 PM
Long post, my apologies.
No apologies needed. It was well-said, and I agree with you completely.
The ongoing justification of bypassing or defeating the DRM, as though this is somehow a "moral" action is pathetic. Period.
No apologies needed. It was well-said, and I agree with you completely.
The ongoing justification of bypassing or defeating the DRM, as though this is somehow a "moral" action is pathetic. Period.
nsjoker
Sep 20, 06:51 PM
either i'm missing the point of this iTV thing or people in america have ridiculous amounts of money to throw away and are willing to pay for tv shows which are free so they can stream them to their iTV box and watch them that way. it's a super efficient way to burn money, but not to watch tv shows. dvr please.
i mean.. i do understand people want frontrow on their tv's, but it seems like an inital craze thing. i'm not going to completely knock this product though, because if anything it's a starting point for apple to infiltrate your living room, and then releasing dvr functionality in the future. we'll see.
i mean.. i do understand people want frontrow on their tv's, but it seems like an inital craze thing. i'm not going to completely knock this product though, because if anything it's a starting point for apple to infiltrate your living room, and then releasing dvr functionality in the future. we'll see.
dejo
May 2, 04:13 PM
by default and design, Windows has been more secure than OSX for years now...Google it...!
Well, we have indisputable proof now! :rolleyes:
Well, we have indisputable proof now! :rolleyes:
Young Spade
Apr 25, 08:01 PM
I found it easy to move to Mac. I picked it up very quickly. I guess I just thought in terms of what I wanted to do in English and then searched the internets/mac for the command.
Also lot of it was easy because I found the Mac to be well organized and streamlined.
Not alot of tedious or unecessary clicks. Nothing seems to be as buried as it is in Windows.
The biggest thing I don't like about OSX is the tiny buttons and scrollbars and windows that can come up. Like the Finder Viewing Options window.
I find Windows easier to use in that aspect. Bigger buttons are just easier to mouse over and click. May look less refined, but easier to work with.
I completely agree. What I don't like though is the ability to customize the top organizational bars (unless you can? If so let me know lol) such as being limited to the name, size, kind, and date modified. I would love to change those.
Also lot of it was easy because I found the Mac to be well organized and streamlined.
Not alot of tedious or unecessary clicks. Nothing seems to be as buried as it is in Windows.
The biggest thing I don't like about OSX is the tiny buttons and scrollbars and windows that can come up. Like the Finder Viewing Options window.
I find Windows easier to use in that aspect. Bigger buttons are just easier to mouse over and click. May look less refined, but easier to work with.
I completely agree. What I don't like though is the ability to customize the top organizational bars (unless you can? If so let me know lol) such as being limited to the name, size, kind, and date modified. I would love to change those.
Dagless
Apr 9, 05:10 AM
Say that about games like Final Fantasy III, Aralon, or even NOVA 2. Try finishing any of these games while on one sitting at the toilet. :eek:
There are some gems. However it goes without saying that FF3 is a port from a DS game, which is a remake of a NES game. Aralon and NOVA 2 are quite cheap in their quality, neither matching the games they're trying to clone.
Nope, obviously the biggest screen you have is your ipad. The console gaming experience is nothing like the mind numbing games which make the bulk of the App store. Sure there are maybe 20 games that have anything like the look of a console, but touch is no replacement for tactile feedback. Take a peek: Appshopper (http://appshopper.com/iphone/games/)
This is true. I mean, I don't know what kind of gamer I am. I have all the consoles (inc Mac and PC), all the major games, all the games that I've ever been vaguely interested in. I love Team Fortress 2, GTA (barring 4), Pokemon, Mario, HALO 1, Left 4 Dead, Final Fantasy. I bought an iPod touch 4G just for gaming and portable internetting.
So hopefully that quickly gets across what kind of gamer I am; I enjoy games regardless of their manufacturer and developer.
But. There's just something not right with the iPod for gaming. It's got the tech and some good software. I bought around 60 games for it, I have 20-30 for my PSP and DS respectively bought over the course of 6 years. Yet at night when I'm winding down I don't play the iPod - I go to the dedicated consoles. Maybe it's the tactile controls, maybe it's the better speakers, higher quality of games. But something pulls me away from iOS. On-screen butts are not a good way of controlling a game, it's just a reminder that buttons work (for most game genres).
I had to lol at the person who brought up gaming in queues at Costco. That's when I whip out my iPod for a bit of Angry Birds (unlocked the 4 hour achievement last time I played!). :D
You mean you actually do something productive with your life, and not spend all your resources playing... a game.
Be proud of this.
So I guess you don't watch movies, TV shows, go to the pub/bar, visit museums or browse the inte...
Hmmm ;)
What's it like doing nothing but productivity all day? I tried that for around a year. It brought me really bad RSI and I completely burnt myself out. Not a fun way to live.
There are some gems. However it goes without saying that FF3 is a port from a DS game, which is a remake of a NES game. Aralon and NOVA 2 are quite cheap in their quality, neither matching the games they're trying to clone.
Nope, obviously the biggest screen you have is your ipad. The console gaming experience is nothing like the mind numbing games which make the bulk of the App store. Sure there are maybe 20 games that have anything like the look of a console, but touch is no replacement for tactile feedback. Take a peek: Appshopper (http://appshopper.com/iphone/games/)
This is true. I mean, I don't know what kind of gamer I am. I have all the consoles (inc Mac and PC), all the major games, all the games that I've ever been vaguely interested in. I love Team Fortress 2, GTA (barring 4), Pokemon, Mario, HALO 1, Left 4 Dead, Final Fantasy. I bought an iPod touch 4G just for gaming and portable internetting.
So hopefully that quickly gets across what kind of gamer I am; I enjoy games regardless of their manufacturer and developer.
But. There's just something not right with the iPod for gaming. It's got the tech and some good software. I bought around 60 games for it, I have 20-30 for my PSP and DS respectively bought over the course of 6 years. Yet at night when I'm winding down I don't play the iPod - I go to the dedicated consoles. Maybe it's the tactile controls, maybe it's the better speakers, higher quality of games. But something pulls me away from iOS. On-screen butts are not a good way of controlling a game, it's just a reminder that buttons work (for most game genres).
I had to lol at the person who brought up gaming in queues at Costco. That's when I whip out my iPod for a bit of Angry Birds (unlocked the 4 hour achievement last time I played!). :D
You mean you actually do something productive with your life, and not spend all your resources playing... a game.
Be proud of this.
So I guess you don't watch movies, TV shows, go to the pub/bar, visit museums or browse the inte...
Hmmm ;)
What's it like doing nothing but productivity all day? I tried that for around a year. It brought me really bad RSI and I completely burnt myself out. Not a fun way to live.
GGJstudios
May 2, 04:38 PM
Cutting a deal with a hacker, if we can get one who's up high enough ...
This sounds like you're under the mistaken impression that hackers are members of some kind of organization or ranking.... they're not. They are, for the most part, quite independent. There's no such thing as "Hacker, Class 3" or "Hacker, Class 1". Also, not all hackers write malware and not all malware writers are hackers. The more you offer such statements, the more you reveal that you have no idea what you're talking about.
This sounds like you're under the mistaken impression that hackers are members of some kind of organization or ranking.... they're not. They are, for the most part, quite independent. There's no such thing as "Hacker, Class 3" or "Hacker, Class 1". Also, not all hackers write malware and not all malware writers are hackers. The more you offer such statements, the more you reveal that you have no idea what you're talking about.
econgeek
Apr 12, 10:37 PM
They should have just called this iMovie pro, because that's what it is. So, Apple Color is left to die the death of Shake, huh? Wow, crazy.
I think you missed the color correction on ingest, non-destructive color correction, and one-click color correction feature announcements. Color is not dead, it is just no longer a separate app. The entire app is re-written with color matching integrate to the app, and color correction as well, it sounds like.
So this is basically a jazzed up Final Cut Express and the pros have been shown the door. Why am I not shocked about this. :mad:
This is what you wanted to believe and so this is all you see. Since people were saying essentially the same thing before anything had been announced, you're not going to be getting much sympathy.
I think you missed the color correction on ingest, non-destructive color correction, and one-click color correction feature announcements. Color is not dead, it is just no longer a separate app. The entire app is re-written with color matching integrate to the app, and color correction as well, it sounds like.
So this is basically a jazzed up Final Cut Express and the pros have been shown the door. Why am I not shocked about this. :mad:
This is what you wanted to believe and so this is all you see. Since people were saying essentially the same thing before anything had been announced, you're not going to be getting much sympathy.
Jo-Kun
Sep 20, 04:52 AM
Iger also indicates that the device does indeed contain a hard drive... a fact that was not entirely clear from the preview.
actually... he doesn't indicate a HD... why? well the iTV (sorry, not really impressed with this name) streams media from your mac/pc trough wifi or ethernet... so if you buy an episode on iTunes... it will be stored in your iTunes library on the content-hosting mac/pc in your house and thus be available for iTV to play on your TV...
since it has a USB port I guess it will be possible to attach a USB HD... and store files locally instead of on a remote mac/pc...
actually... he doesn't indicate a HD... why? well the iTV (sorry, not really impressed with this name) streams media from your mac/pc trough wifi or ethernet... so if you buy an episode on iTunes... it will be stored in your iTunes library on the content-hosting mac/pc in your house and thus be available for iTV to play on your TV...
since it has a USB port I guess it will be possible to attach a USB HD... and store files locally instead of on a remote mac/pc...
DroidRules
Apr 28, 09:22 AM
I'm replying just so you don't get the slightest idea in your head that you've won, or that I'm retreating. I'm sitting with my entire office laughing at your naivete and misunderstanding of what modern computer hardware is. Keep digging your hole.
Maybe your employer would like to know the entire office is slacking and on MR instead of working...... nice way to burn company time with your pathetic pecker measuring.
Maybe your employer would like to know the entire office is slacking and on MR instead of working...... nice way to burn company time with your pathetic pecker measuring.
.jpg "Beautiful Black White Stripe")
tigress666
Apr 10, 12:18 PM
Yeah that is why they have the top selling game on console in COD and the top selling game on PC in WOW :rolleyes:
That being said, I would love to see games like the old school RPG FF games or even starcraft type games.
Those would own on the ipads and work pretty well on the iphone/ipods as well
Uh, they have Final Fantasy 1-III on the iPhone :) (III is the most expensive game I've seen on the iphone, 16 bux!). I'm working on II right now (then going to try I and got a few more games so waiting for III to be on sale or for when I finish the other games, whichever comes first).
I'm just hoping they eventually get to VII (that they find porting these over to iOS is worth doing more Final Fantasy's on it). Shoot, maybe if they keep going by number, they can get X on an iphone (maybe by that time the hardware will be able to handle that?).
And I'd love to see Lunar Star Story on the iphone. That would be pretty awesome too. Or Breath of Fire IV. There's a ton of old rpgs that would do great on the iphone. And touch screen wouldn't be too bad of an interface for the old style rpgs either. Actually, for old style rpgs, touch screen would have advantages (no scrolling through lists, just pick it out with your finger).
Personally, I'd just be happy with them porting over the popular games to the iphone that are on other platforms. I honestly think for me the iPhone is the best portable player cause it is with me everywhere (so with the amount of games I am finding on it now even I'd probably not be really tempted to buy the other handhelds. The iphone being so portable gives it a major plus compared to the more dedicated handheld game systems. Now a console, that would be different).
I do think that it does have one issue, that since it is my phone as well, it is kind of annoying I have to worry about keeping some battery life so I still have my phone (For example using it on a plane flight I still need to have a usable phone at the end of the flight).
That being said, I would love to see games like the old school RPG FF games or even starcraft type games.
Those would own on the ipads and work pretty well on the iphone/ipods as well
Uh, they have Final Fantasy 1-III on the iPhone :) (III is the most expensive game I've seen on the iphone, 16 bux!). I'm working on II right now (then going to try I and got a few more games so waiting for III to be on sale or for when I finish the other games, whichever comes first).
I'm just hoping they eventually get to VII (that they find porting these over to iOS is worth doing more Final Fantasy's on it). Shoot, maybe if they keep going by number, they can get X on an iphone (maybe by that time the hardware will be able to handle that?).
And I'd love to see Lunar Star Story on the iphone. That would be pretty awesome too. Or Breath of Fire IV. There's a ton of old rpgs that would do great on the iphone. And touch screen wouldn't be too bad of an interface for the old style rpgs either. Actually, for old style rpgs, touch screen would have advantages (no scrolling through lists, just pick it out with your finger).
Personally, I'd just be happy with them porting over the popular games to the iphone that are on other platforms. I honestly think for me the iPhone is the best portable player cause it is with me everywhere (so with the amount of games I am finding on it now even I'd probably not be really tempted to buy the other handhelds. The iphone being so portable gives it a major plus compared to the more dedicated handheld game systems. Now a console, that would be different).
I do think that it does have one issue, that since it is my phone as well, it is kind of annoying I have to worry about keeping some battery life so I still have my phone (For example using it on a plane flight I still need to have a usable phone at the end of the flight).
BrianMojo
Sep 12, 05:09 PM
This was released to make the other movie companies fold and agree to sign and give Apple their content. Why else would they allow everyone this info this early in the game? It is to make the movie industry drool and sell their stuff through iTunes.
Nail on the head, imo.
Agreed. If it can't do HD, I'll pass.
-Sean
There's no reason they would've put component outs on it if it won't (eventually) do HD.
Nail on the head, imo.
Agreed. If it can't do HD, I'll pass.
-Sean
There's no reason they would've put component outs on it if it won't (eventually) do HD.
Evangelion
Jul 12, 02:22 AM
Oh really.
Ok, tell me what's out there that can substitute on a professional level Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator.
I am sure you don't work on the business, so you have no clue.
A follow-up question: why the obsession with Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator? There are other apps out there as well. Why does it seem that about 105% of Mac-users are Photoshop-users as well (I bet that PhotoShop-users are in fact in the minority)? Everything related to Apple, OS X and Macs seem to boil down to "but what about PhotoShop?". Well, what about it?
You are worried about the fact that Adobe's apps are not yet Universal? Fine, then don't buy a MacIntel. Problem solved.
Ok, tell me what's out there that can substitute on a professional level Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator.
I am sure you don't work on the business, so you have no clue.
A follow-up question: why the obsession with Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator? There are other apps out there as well. Why does it seem that about 105% of Mac-users are Photoshop-users as well (I bet that PhotoShop-users are in fact in the minority)? Everything related to Apple, OS X and Macs seem to boil down to "but what about PhotoShop?". Well, what about it?
You are worried about the fact that Adobe's apps are not yet Universal? Fine, then don't buy a MacIntel. Problem solved.
Moyank24
Mar 27, 09:36 PM
But why should they have to be celibate just because some religious nuts have a problem with them? His organization can do whatever they want, but the point of organizations is to try to improve life for the future. And making gay people celibate will not be the way of the future, i can promise you that. Actually, it's not even the way of the present, only unintelligent people would want to do that.
Exactly.
And it's not only unintelligent people, but people who have been brainwashed by religion...people who truly believe they will go to Hell if they act on those "urges". It is sickening.
Exactly.
And it's not only unintelligent people, but people who have been brainwashed by religion...people who truly believe they will go to Hell if they act on those "urges". It is sickening.
awmazz
Mar 14, 11:34 AM
Am I hearing the expert om TV right? He's saying the seawater being pumped in is just *around* the core container to stop it from overheating and melting. It's not actually *into* the core to cool it down.
So basically these fire engines are just pumping water onto the outside of a red hot oven to keep it from melting while the oven still burns brightly.
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Edit - The NYT article appears to contradict this, saying the water is being pumped in to cover the rods:
The Kyodo news agency reported that the damaged fuel rods at the third reactor had been temporarily exposed, increasing the risk of overheating. Sea water was being channeled into the reactor to cover the rods, Kyodo reported.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
The key phrase is 'passed through'. So sailing through it. How long did that take, assume 10 minutes? So a month's exposure in just 10 minutes. If they remained stationary for a full day that equates to how many future sailors' babies born with no legs or whatnot? (See there? I'm not talking about deaths.) Quick arithmetic = 6 months backrgound radiation per hour = lookie there a nice divisible number, 12 years worth per day.
So living in that house of yours in your example. Extrapolate that out. 12 years of background exposure per day for a whole year = 4,380 YEARS worth of normal background exposure per annum. How many deformed babies is that *not* to worry about in future years? Seriously, are you telling us all here that you would have your pregnant wife remain exposed to this sort of 'flying on a plane' level of radiation? That you would be happy to have your pregnant wife (if she was) remain within 100 kilomtres of Fukishima for any length of time based on current circumstances?
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is.
So basically these fire engines are just pumping water onto the outside of a red hot oven to keep it from melting while the oven still burns brightly.
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Edit - The NYT article appears to contradict this, saying the water is being pumped in to cover the rods:
The Kyodo news agency reported that the damaged fuel rods at the third reactor had been temporarily exposed, increasing the risk of overheating. Sea water was being channeled into the reactor to cover the rods, Kyodo reported.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
The key phrase is 'passed through'. So sailing through it. How long did that take, assume 10 minutes? So a month's exposure in just 10 minutes. If they remained stationary for a full day that equates to how many future sailors' babies born with no legs or whatnot? (See there? I'm not talking about deaths.) Quick arithmetic = 6 months backrgound radiation per hour = lookie there a nice divisible number, 12 years worth per day.
So living in that house of yours in your example. Extrapolate that out. 12 years of background exposure per day for a whole year = 4,380 YEARS worth of normal background exposure per annum. How many deformed babies is that *not* to worry about in future years? Seriously, are you telling us all here that you would have your pregnant wife remain exposed to this sort of 'flying on a plane' level of radiation? That you would be happy to have your pregnant wife (if she was) remain within 100 kilomtres of Fukishima for any length of time based on current circumstances?
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is.
Multimedia
Nov 3, 03:28 AM
Well a significant amount of 3D and video software currently uses more than 2 cores but that's still a very small segment of the overall computing market. The multi-core market can't be ignored, I'm not saying it should be, but it's still not going to appeal to the masses until the rest, the majority, of the software out there catches up.
Quad core imac's would be pointless right now but maybe they wont be in 6 months if software catches up. It's pretty clear that hardware is ahead software at the moment but it will catch up again. It's gone back and forth for as long as I can remember.Boy are you out of touch with reality.
Let's say I'm a consumer who just bought a $150 EyeTV Hybrid digital broadcast TV Tuner-recorder software package (http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna) so I can play HDTV on my 24" iMac. And let's say I decided I'd like to archive my HD broadcast recordings on that iMac. I can tell you with no uncertain terms that if that consumer does not have 4 cores in that iMac, he/she can forgetabout it. Moreover, I can say with absolute 100% metaphysical certainty that if he/she has four cores in an iMac TODAY, that he/she will find that they can only run the compression software that will accomplish that MENIAL TASK in very limited serial fashion.
In other words you don't know what you are writing about at all. I apologize for my anger. But it really chafes my hide whenever I read a post written by someone who has never tried to crush television programming so it can be stored in a reasonable size on large HDs and/or DVDs for viewing later. mp4 files are the 21st Century equivalent of a 20th Century VHS tape or DVD collection.
The job is not only slow and arduous, the consumer software, Toast 7.1 and Handbrake UB, is also 4 core ready and would hose a 4-core iMac in about oh say 5 seconds from the beginning of executing two processes.
The level of ignorance about the state of consumer software technology and the mass market for 4-core processor hardware technology today on this front is frightening to me. :eek:
You could not be more mistaken about your opinion stated above than about anything you have ever misunderstood. I have almost a year of experience in this exercise and I can tell you that it is nothing less than a full time job due to lack of appropriate hardware. The software is WAY ahead of the hardware and of that I have no doubt.
Quad core imac's would be pointless right now but maybe they wont be in 6 months if software catches up. It's pretty clear that hardware is ahead software at the moment but it will catch up again. It's gone back and forth for as long as I can remember.Boy are you out of touch with reality.
Let's say I'm a consumer who just bought a $150 EyeTV Hybrid digital broadcast TV Tuner-recorder software package (http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna) so I can play HDTV on my 24" iMac. And let's say I decided I'd like to archive my HD broadcast recordings on that iMac. I can tell you with no uncertain terms that if that consumer does not have 4 cores in that iMac, he/she can forgetabout it. Moreover, I can say with absolute 100% metaphysical certainty that if he/she has four cores in an iMac TODAY, that he/she will find that they can only run the compression software that will accomplish that MENIAL TASK in very limited serial fashion.
In other words you don't know what you are writing about at all. I apologize for my anger. But it really chafes my hide whenever I read a post written by someone who has never tried to crush television programming so it can be stored in a reasonable size on large HDs and/or DVDs for viewing later. mp4 files are the 21st Century equivalent of a 20th Century VHS tape or DVD collection.
The job is not only slow and arduous, the consumer software, Toast 7.1 and Handbrake UB, is also 4 core ready and would hose a 4-core iMac in about oh say 5 seconds from the beginning of executing two processes.
The level of ignorance about the state of consumer software technology and the mass market for 4-core processor hardware technology today on this front is frightening to me. :eek:
You could not be more mistaken about your opinion stated above than about anything you have ever misunderstood. I have almost a year of experience in this exercise and I can tell you that it is nothing less than a full time job due to lack of appropriate hardware. The software is WAY ahead of the hardware and of that I have no doubt.
QCassidy352
Mar 18, 11:49 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
I should add that I don't agree with those calling unofficial tethering "stealing." it's not taking anything from AT&T and it's not illegal in the sense of breaking a criminal law (and AT&T isn't saying otherwise). It's a violation of your contract, and AT&T is therefore justified in taking action. I agree that charging more for tethering on a limited data plan doesn't make much sense, but contracts don't have to make perfect sense.
Personally, I don't use unauthorized tethering because I believe in honoring my contracts. But it's not "stealing."
I should add that I don't agree with those calling unofficial tethering "stealing." it's not taking anything from AT&T and it's not illegal in the sense of breaking a criminal law (and AT&T isn't saying otherwise). It's a violation of your contract, and AT&T is therefore justified in taking action. I agree that charging more for tethering on a limited data plan doesn't make much sense, but contracts don't have to make perfect sense.
Personally, I don't use unauthorized tethering because I believe in honoring my contracts. But it's not "stealing."
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar