NT1440
Apr 25, 08:56 PM
<snip>Allah decided that </snip>
When exactly?
When exactly?
M87
Apr 12, 11:28 PM
Amen! Bring on Logic X for said price and on the App store.
Exciting times indeed! I can't wait :D
+1
So ready to move up from Express.
Exciting times indeed! I can't wait :D
+1
So ready to move up from Express.
JackAxe
Apr 9, 03:15 AM
WHAT?! the best thing about the iphone IS TOUCH!!!! NO MORE BUTTONS!!!
Not for most games.
Beside, you can touch buttons. :)
Not for most games.
Beside, you can touch buttons. :)
mdntcallr
Oct 26, 11:04 AM
I am pretty excited about this, because if i read it right...
the new mac pro's will possibly come out at the same price point's as the higher end model's.
which when these come out... would mean that the ones out now may DROP in price. hey just a thought. a good one :p
the new mac pro's will possibly come out at the same price point's as the higher end model's.
which when these come out... would mean that the ones out now may DROP in price. hey just a thought. a good one :p
MacinDoc
Apr 12, 11:04 PM
Yes, that was exactly my point. The people who know how to use the software are (sometimes) assistant editors, although I find the vast majority know how to do a few simple things, but do them well.. The original poster was implying you needed to be a hollywood film editor to judge technical capabilities, and I was saying they were the worst choice for just that reason.
The people who know the most about editing systems are the Sr. editors who work on heavy, effects based sequences that work in broadcast production environments (I'm not talking about me here). *They* are the ones who push systems to the limits and *they* are the ones who go to NAB. (They're still only 10% of that room)
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
Now if it turns out this is just the tip of the iceberg-- then we really could be in for a treat.
Who said anything about discontinuing Color and the rest of FCS? I can't imagine Apple would think that Color could be replaced by one-click color correction. And once and for all, can we stop saying that making the interface easier to use is making the product less professional? Is OS X less professional than DOS?
The people who know the most about editing systems are the Sr. editors who work on heavy, effects based sequences that work in broadcast production environments (I'm not talking about me here). *They* are the ones who push systems to the limits and *they* are the ones who go to NAB. (They're still only 10% of that room)
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
Now if it turns out this is just the tip of the iceberg-- then we really could be in for a treat.
Who said anything about discontinuing Color and the rest of FCS? I can't imagine Apple would think that Color could be replaced by one-click color correction. And once and for all, can we stop saying that making the interface easier to use is making the product less professional? Is OS X less professional than DOS?
econgeek
Apr 12, 11:07 PM
I can't even believe I was arguing with someone who things that magic bullet and Color are even remotely the same thing.
Goodnight, junior.
I can't believe there are people such as yourself with such a stark lack of integrity that you would lie about what I have said in order to insult me... and simultaneously lack the basic wisdom to recognize that quoting me saying what I actually said in the very message where you tell the lie makes the lie obvious to anyone with basic comprehension skills.
I mentioned the likelihood of a plugin system that would allow grading, and I mentioned magic bullet:
http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/products/all/magic-bullet-looks/
I never said that it and color were "the same", I just gave it as an example of something, like Color, that could be integrated into the app workflow via a plugin architecture. I never made a comparison between them, not that comparing a color grading tool like color to magic bullet looks, which is a color grading tool, is all that radical a notion-- if I had made the comparison.
I'm amazed, if this stark lack of basic integrity and honesty, isn't just you hiding behind an alias online, that you could ever maintain gainful employment acting this way.
You owe me an apology.
Goodnight, junior.
I can't believe there are people such as yourself with such a stark lack of integrity that you would lie about what I have said in order to insult me... and simultaneously lack the basic wisdom to recognize that quoting me saying what I actually said in the very message where you tell the lie makes the lie obvious to anyone with basic comprehension skills.
I mentioned the likelihood of a plugin system that would allow grading, and I mentioned magic bullet:
http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/products/all/magic-bullet-looks/
I never said that it and color were "the same", I just gave it as an example of something, like Color, that could be integrated into the app workflow via a plugin architecture. I never made a comparison between them, not that comparing a color grading tool like color to magic bullet looks, which is a color grading tool, is all that radical a notion-- if I had made the comparison.
I'm amazed, if this stark lack of basic integrity and honesty, isn't just you hiding behind an alias online, that you could ever maintain gainful employment acting this way.
You owe me an apology.
Multimedia
Sep 26, 06:09 PM
And the wait for 8 Core Mac Pros and Merom MacBook Pros/MaBook is on. Waiting for speed bumps means no one buys a dang thing.It's also not just speed bumps. I want a MBP redesign that includes a better cooling system and an easy access HD Bay like in the MB. Lots of good reasons to be waiting. It's the IN thing to do right now. We're the IN Crowd. :Dat least the educated do not.... Well... it's amazing that now every dual core computer is obsolete, and every single core computer is like an Apple II compared to this.Yes but that 2.7GHz DP G5 of yours is a keeper. The fastest last classic G5 DP on the planet. Kudos to you for hanging on to it. If I were you I would NEVER sell it. Should become a family heirloom. Wish I had one.
acslater017
Aug 29, 01:06 PM
This should be a Page 2 story at best. Let's be clear about what this bit of propaganda is... We know Greenpeace is anti-technology, anti-capitalism. They know Apple is not only a huge success story, but also has a big presence in consumer's minds. Everyone knows Apple and iPods. Clearly Greenpeace, like the iPod labor camp story before it, is USING Apple to forward their own agenda of killing technology and thwarting capitalism and innovation.
Greenpeace is not exactly 'agenda-less'. But that seems sort of paranoid to say that they're clearly trying to kill technology, capitalism and innovation. If they wanted to target Apple, or get a lot of publicity, they surely could have done something more dramatic than put them fourth from the bottom of a list.
And honestly, what do we know about Apple's environmental standards (materials used, manufacturing processes, disposal methods, etc.)? I really doubt that most of you (myself included) are industrial engineers, environmental standards auditors or something. Like some previous replies said - some people can't stand the idea that Apple is not great at something, and will lash out at those who criticize it. I mean, I like Apple's stuff, but it's just a company. Keep an open mind...
Greenpeace is not exactly 'agenda-less'. But that seems sort of paranoid to say that they're clearly trying to kill technology, capitalism and innovation. If they wanted to target Apple, or get a lot of publicity, they surely could have done something more dramatic than put them fourth from the bottom of a list.
And honestly, what do we know about Apple's environmental standards (materials used, manufacturing processes, disposal methods, etc.)? I really doubt that most of you (myself included) are industrial engineers, environmental standards auditors or something. Like some previous replies said - some people can't stand the idea that Apple is not great at something, and will lash out at those who criticize it. I mean, I like Apple's stuff, but it's just a company. Keep an open mind...
MacRumors
Apr 12, 10:11 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/12/apple-demos-final-cut-pro-x-at-nab-2011/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/12/225656-275785456_500.jpg
wallpaper pemandangan.
wallpaper pemandangan.
wallpaper pemandangan air
wallpaper pemandangan air
wallpaper pemandangan laut.
View more wallpapers from this
Wallpaper Pemandangan
Wallpaper+pemandangan+pantai
Foto Pemandangan Indah Dunia
Wallpaper Pemandangan
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/12/225656-275785456_500.jpg
triceretops
Apr 28, 12:32 PM
I'm sure if you rated all the companies on profit, Apple would be #1. Apple's margins are better.:)
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:27 PM
What a silly thought. Of course it's not free. I'm saying that it is just as unethical for Apple to ignore Linux as it is for DVD Jon to try and play music on Linux. We are not talking about what is technically wrong here. After all, every country has a different set of laws. We are talking about what is the right thing to do. It would hardly be a burden for Apple to port iTunes and open up Airport drivers.
The main concern of mine is Apple's stubborn refusal to adapt to simple standards. They haven't kept up with GNU standards in GCC, they won't port Quicktime or iTunes to Linux, they won't make open drivers available for Airport cards. Apple is losing quite a few fans. I was a huge Apple fan for a long time (3/4 of my life). Now, I am losing respect for Apple's ridiculous money-making stubborness.
And don't try and argue that Mac OS X is just the same as linux. It isn't.
It is NOT unethical to keep drivers for your own hardware and distribute them how you choose. Apple has an obligation to keep up with their own hardware and software. They have no moral or legal obligation to make drivers for any OS they don't want to. Is it frustrating? Yes, if you want to run Linux on your PowerBook. But in that situation, you have to know that Linux doesn't have mainstream support for tons of hardware, and nothing is stopping you from writing your own driver, except a lack of knowledge or time on how to do so. If you need assistance or technical information, join Apple's Developer program. That's exactly why it exists, and why I participate. If they don't want to port their software to another platform, they don't have to.
You might say that iTunes should be on Linux, and that it will make more money for Apple, so it's a good idea. It doesn't mean that someone violating the TOS is an ethical action. DVD Jon might want his iTunes on Linux, but he has no right to it. Like I've said previously, he can just as easily import the audio from CDs into Linux and stream purchased music over his network from a Windows or Mac machine with iTunes legally installed. Or, as it turns out, you can buy CrossoverOffice (or modify Wine yourself to avoid having to pay for it) and install iTunes that way. Those are legal alternatives to accomplishing what you want, and that's that.
Doing something you are specifically not supposed to do is NOT the same as not doing something you could do, but don't have to do.
The main concern of mine is Apple's stubborn refusal to adapt to simple standards. They haven't kept up with GNU standards in GCC, they won't port Quicktime or iTunes to Linux, they won't make open drivers available for Airport cards. Apple is losing quite a few fans. I was a huge Apple fan for a long time (3/4 of my life). Now, I am losing respect for Apple's ridiculous money-making stubborness.
And don't try and argue that Mac OS X is just the same as linux. It isn't.
It is NOT unethical to keep drivers for your own hardware and distribute them how you choose. Apple has an obligation to keep up with their own hardware and software. They have no moral or legal obligation to make drivers for any OS they don't want to. Is it frustrating? Yes, if you want to run Linux on your PowerBook. But in that situation, you have to know that Linux doesn't have mainstream support for tons of hardware, and nothing is stopping you from writing your own driver, except a lack of knowledge or time on how to do so. If you need assistance or technical information, join Apple's Developer program. That's exactly why it exists, and why I participate. If they don't want to port their software to another platform, they don't have to.
You might say that iTunes should be on Linux, and that it will make more money for Apple, so it's a good idea. It doesn't mean that someone violating the TOS is an ethical action. DVD Jon might want his iTunes on Linux, but he has no right to it. Like I've said previously, he can just as easily import the audio from CDs into Linux and stream purchased music over his network from a Windows or Mac machine with iTunes legally installed. Or, as it turns out, you can buy CrossoverOffice (or modify Wine yourself to avoid having to pay for it) and install iTunes that way. Those are legal alternatives to accomplishing what you want, and that's that.
Doing something you are specifically not supposed to do is NOT the same as not doing something you could do, but don't have to do.
Gelfin
Apr 24, 03:03 PM
In answer to the OP's question, I have long harbored the suspicion (without any clear idea how to test it) that human beings have evolved their penchant for accepting nonsense. On the face of it, accepting that which does not correspond with reality is a very costly behavior. Animals that believe they need to sacrifice part of their food supply should be that much less likely to survive than those without that belief.
My hunch, however, is that the willingness to play along with certain kinds of nonsense games, including religion and other ritualized activities, is a social bonding mechanism in humans so deeply ingrained that it is difficult for us to step outside ourselves and recognize it for a game. One's willingness to play along with the rituals of a culture signifies that his need to be a part of the community is stronger than his need for rational justification. Consenting to accept a manufactured truth is an act of submission. It generates social cohesion and establishes shibboleths. In a way it is a constant background radiation of codependence and enablement permeating human existence.
If I go way too far out on this particular limb, I actually suspect that the ability to prioritize rational justification over social submission is a more recent development than we realize, and that this development is still competing with the old instincts for social cohesion. Perhaps this is the reason that atheists and skeptics are typically considered more objectionable than those with differing religious or supernatural beliefs. Playing the game under slightly different rules seems less dangerous than refusing to play at all.
Think of the undertones of the intuitive stereotype many people have of skeptics: many people automatically imagine a sort of bristly, unfriendly loner who isn't really happy and is always trying to make other people unhappy too. There is really no factual basis for this caricature, and yet it is almost universal. On this account, when we become adults we do not stop playing games of make-believe. Instead we just start taking our games of make-believe very seriously, and our intuitive sense is that someone who rejects our games is rejecting us. Such a person feels untrustworthy in a way we would find hard to justify.
Religions are hardly the only source of this sort of game. I suspect they are everywhere, often too subtle to notice, but religions are by far the largest, oldest, most obtrusive example.
My hunch, however, is that the willingness to play along with certain kinds of nonsense games, including religion and other ritualized activities, is a social bonding mechanism in humans so deeply ingrained that it is difficult for us to step outside ourselves and recognize it for a game. One's willingness to play along with the rituals of a culture signifies that his need to be a part of the community is stronger than his need for rational justification. Consenting to accept a manufactured truth is an act of submission. It generates social cohesion and establishes shibboleths. In a way it is a constant background radiation of codependence and enablement permeating human existence.
If I go way too far out on this particular limb, I actually suspect that the ability to prioritize rational justification over social submission is a more recent development than we realize, and that this development is still competing with the old instincts for social cohesion. Perhaps this is the reason that atheists and skeptics are typically considered more objectionable than those with differing religious or supernatural beliefs. Playing the game under slightly different rules seems less dangerous than refusing to play at all.
Think of the undertones of the intuitive stereotype many people have of skeptics: many people automatically imagine a sort of bristly, unfriendly loner who isn't really happy and is always trying to make other people unhappy too. There is really no factual basis for this caricature, and yet it is almost universal. On this account, when we become adults we do not stop playing games of make-believe. Instead we just start taking our games of make-believe very seriously, and our intuitive sense is that someone who rejects our games is rejecting us. Such a person feels untrustworthy in a way we would find hard to justify.
Religions are hardly the only source of this sort of game. I suspect they are everywhere, often too subtle to notice, but religions are by far the largest, oldest, most obtrusive example.
darkplanets
Mar 13, 04:43 PM
SNIP (Just to save space)
I know thorium doesn't have an awesome past, especially in early development. That said, I think with more development it's liable to be a better alternative to uranium. What you said is all true, however you're citing an experimental reactor; things just aren't magically perfect, sadly.
To quote one of your articles: It was 15MWe, 46 MWt, and was used to develop and test a wide variety of fuels and machinery over its lifetime. Its Helium outlet temperature was 950�C, but fuel temperature instabilities occurred during operation with locally far to high temperatures. As a consequence the whole reactor vessel became heavily contaminated by Cs-137 and Sr-90 [1]. Concerning beta-contamination AVR is the highest contaminated nuclear installation worldwide as AVR management confirmed 2001
Notice the part about it being used to test a wide variety of fuels and machinery? Also the fuel temperature instabilities? That's what caused the Cs-137 and Sr-90 contamination, as noted above. A reactor that's properly designed (with properly fabricated fuel) won't have the disadvantages of a test reactor, and shouldn't have that contamination. I'm not saying it's perfect now, but controlling those instabilities shouldn't be an issue, especially in light of salt or liquid fuel possibilities. Furthermore, what about MSR? It's not a pebble bed; it's molten. That itself should even out the fuel temperature instabilities a little, just the liquid fuel based system.
You raise a very valid point about Thorium, however I think one instance of a test reactor hardly justifies dinging the entire concept because the initial reactor wasn't designed well (see the cracked bottom of the AVR...), but rather it serves as a basis for future designs. Also, what about India planning to use thorium? They're not approaching this with guesswork-- there's clear advantages to using it over uranium. Differences in opinion I guess, but hey, to each his own.
EDIT: Also, I know my initial wording was a little fuzzy; what I meant to say was PBR with uranium, and MSR with thorium-- at least for now.
I know thorium doesn't have an awesome past, especially in early development. That said, I think with more development it's liable to be a better alternative to uranium. What you said is all true, however you're citing an experimental reactor; things just aren't magically perfect, sadly.
To quote one of your articles: It was 15MWe, 46 MWt, and was used to develop and test a wide variety of fuels and machinery over its lifetime. Its Helium outlet temperature was 950�C, but fuel temperature instabilities occurred during operation with locally far to high temperatures. As a consequence the whole reactor vessel became heavily contaminated by Cs-137 and Sr-90 [1]. Concerning beta-contamination AVR is the highest contaminated nuclear installation worldwide as AVR management confirmed 2001
Notice the part about it being used to test a wide variety of fuels and machinery? Also the fuel temperature instabilities? That's what caused the Cs-137 and Sr-90 contamination, as noted above. A reactor that's properly designed (with properly fabricated fuel) won't have the disadvantages of a test reactor, and shouldn't have that contamination. I'm not saying it's perfect now, but controlling those instabilities shouldn't be an issue, especially in light of salt or liquid fuel possibilities. Furthermore, what about MSR? It's not a pebble bed; it's molten. That itself should even out the fuel temperature instabilities a little, just the liquid fuel based system.
You raise a very valid point about Thorium, however I think one instance of a test reactor hardly justifies dinging the entire concept because the initial reactor wasn't designed well (see the cracked bottom of the AVR...), but rather it serves as a basis for future designs. Also, what about India planning to use thorium? They're not approaching this with guesswork-- there's clear advantages to using it over uranium. Differences in opinion I guess, but hey, to each his own.
EDIT: Also, I know my initial wording was a little fuzzy; what I meant to say was PBR with uranium, and MSR with thorium-- at least for now.
Sydde
Mar 15, 06:40 PM
Somewhere I think I read that Fukushima Dai-ichi was just a few months away from final retirement of the entire facility after twice its designed lifetime. But there almost certainly must be spent fuel rods in all the basins, since fuel changes are done at least as often as 18 months and spent fuel takes two to four years to cool enough to be safely moved offsite. The fuel still contains enough U-235 to produce considerable heat from just decay, but internal pollutants reduce its ability to contribute in a reactive core. Presumably, spent fuel is not considered to be able/likely to generate a critical event (neutron flux is too compromised by pollutants) so it would not require such sturdy containment as would a reactor.
To me, this operation looks slightly slipshod, almost like brinkmanship. Pushing nuclear systems even half way to their limits seems like too risky.
To me, this operation looks slightly slipshod, almost like brinkmanship. Pushing nuclear systems even half way to their limits seems like too risky.
davelanger
Apr 10, 11:45 AM
Ummm.... everyone that's into gaming HATES Activision.
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
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
koobcamuk
Apr 9, 12:04 AM
These people are fleeing the "yellow light of death� on PS3 or "red ring of death' on 360.
That's a complete joke, surely? There's no way you can compare console gaming, in basically a home arcade, to swiping your fingers around on a 3.5" screen. No way. I am a gamer, and always will be.
Gaming on the iPhone is good for 2-minute bursts, such as when sitting on the toilet. It's not a great games device. Most of the games are cheap with no replay value.
That's a complete joke, surely? There's no way you can compare console gaming, in basically a home arcade, to swiping your fingers around on a 3.5" screen. No way. I am a gamer, and always will be.
Gaming on the iPhone is good for 2-minute bursts, such as when sitting on the toilet. It's not a great games device. Most of the games are cheap with no replay value.
NathanMuir
Mar 25, 06:08 PM
I'm far from the first or only person who has deviated from the original topic. You can either move with the discussion, or virtually everything from page 2 on is off-topic. For those of you playing at home, the goalposts have now been moved from hatred to violence to violence specifically from a catholic source to violence specifically from a "real" catholic.
Despite your disregard for the pretext of civility, my source was wikipedia, which I did in fact cite in post #27. I'll thank you not to make unfounded accusations.
This coming from a person who just very selectively quoted parts of my statement. I guess I shall assume the other 2.5 points I made were true?
The irony is so thick I might choke.
Despite your disregard for the pretext of civility, my source was wikipedia, which I did in fact cite in post #27. I'll thank you not to make unfounded accusations.
This coming from a person who just very selectively quoted parts of my statement. I guess I shall assume the other 2.5 points I made were true?
The irony is so thick I might choke.
ender land
Apr 23, 09:15 PM
Why is the PRSI attitude 'religion is wrong'?
I have no idea. I'm not one of those perpetuating that attitude. All I know is that this is the attitude, regardless as to the "why" it exists. Maybe because the majority of atheists tend to have an attitude of more "religion sucks, I'm atheist" whereas religious people do not have an "atheism sucks, I'm theistic" attitude for the most part.
If these forums reflected US religious belief, atheist opinions would be vastly outnumbered by theists, wouldn't they? Why is this?
Honestly, if you really believe in Christianity or any other religion you won't waste your time posting on some internet forum under anonymous names discussing things which ultimately will benefit no one save providing some cheap entertainment. This is because people who are religious more often think their life has meaning outside what meaning they create for it. As such, self indulgence for the sake of entertainment is not normally valued in religion.
In general the internet is also ripe with issues that are not desired for nearly all religions (porn, suggestive pictures, swearing, etc). This is a key part of why I actually have avatars disabled on all forums I go to, many people like using really suggestive images as avatars. Some forums I will even disable images in posts.
Time spent on forums rarely results in any sort of benefit other than cheap entertainment. Granted, you can make friendships from it and even meet people you previously knew online (I'm guilty of this :eek:), but in general, the overwhelming majority of the time spent is "wasted." A single face to face meeting with a friend provides more long term value than hours upon hours of reading forums and posting.
The atheists I have known over the years tend to be far more bitter towards the world than theists. This does NOT mean everyone here is bitter towards the world. But it is a general trend I have noticed with the many atheists I have interacted with over the years and a trait I once shared. Bitterness tends to make you a loner. Loners seem to gravitate towards the internet because it is a place people accept you, at least somewhat, regardless of whatever reasons you are that way. I am in many regards a loner; I have probably 20k or 25k posts on forums over the past years as a result. I suspect this is also true of the majority of posters here, deep down, we do not naturally form relationships quickly and it's way easier to get cheap social interaction online than in the dreaded Real Life.
I guess the overarching generalization is that people with theistic beliefs have greatly different priorities than those who do not. More often than not, there are things in people's lives they value much more than cheap online entertainment, and as a result, tend to stay away from it as such. Those without such beliefs/convictions/etc are far more likely to do things which are a waste of time. The stronger someone's theistic beliefs are, the more likely they are to both defend them as well as believe what I just wrote, so all you normally will find online is people who are halfheartedly theistic or are the "sunday morning Christian" or "twice a year Christian" types.
btw, thank you for making me think through this answer, it has made me aware just how much of a waste forums like this in fact are. I can list dozens of things which are more valuable, fulfilling, and beneficial longterm than browsing macrumors or the other forums, yet for some reason I still spend time here. I definitely will be evaluating this time...
I have no idea. I'm not one of those perpetuating that attitude. All I know is that this is the attitude, regardless as to the "why" it exists. Maybe because the majority of atheists tend to have an attitude of more "religion sucks, I'm atheist" whereas religious people do not have an "atheism sucks, I'm theistic" attitude for the most part.
If these forums reflected US religious belief, atheist opinions would be vastly outnumbered by theists, wouldn't they? Why is this?
Honestly, if you really believe in Christianity or any other religion you won't waste your time posting on some internet forum under anonymous names discussing things which ultimately will benefit no one save providing some cheap entertainment. This is because people who are religious more often think their life has meaning outside what meaning they create for it. As such, self indulgence for the sake of entertainment is not normally valued in religion.
In general the internet is also ripe with issues that are not desired for nearly all religions (porn, suggestive pictures, swearing, etc). This is a key part of why I actually have avatars disabled on all forums I go to, many people like using really suggestive images as avatars. Some forums I will even disable images in posts.
Time spent on forums rarely results in any sort of benefit other than cheap entertainment. Granted, you can make friendships from it and even meet people you previously knew online (I'm guilty of this :eek:), but in general, the overwhelming majority of the time spent is "wasted." A single face to face meeting with a friend provides more long term value than hours upon hours of reading forums and posting.
The atheists I have known over the years tend to be far more bitter towards the world than theists. This does NOT mean everyone here is bitter towards the world. But it is a general trend I have noticed with the many atheists I have interacted with over the years and a trait I once shared. Bitterness tends to make you a loner. Loners seem to gravitate towards the internet because it is a place people accept you, at least somewhat, regardless of whatever reasons you are that way. I am in many regards a loner; I have probably 20k or 25k posts on forums over the past years as a result. I suspect this is also true of the majority of posters here, deep down, we do not naturally form relationships quickly and it's way easier to get cheap social interaction online than in the dreaded Real Life.
I guess the overarching generalization is that people with theistic beliefs have greatly different priorities than those who do not. More often than not, there are things in people's lives they value much more than cheap online entertainment, and as a result, tend to stay away from it as such. Those without such beliefs/convictions/etc are far more likely to do things which are a waste of time. The stronger someone's theistic beliefs are, the more likely they are to both defend them as well as believe what I just wrote, so all you normally will find online is people who are halfheartedly theistic or are the "sunday morning Christian" or "twice a year Christian" types.
btw, thank you for making me think through this answer, it has made me aware just how much of a waste forums like this in fact are. I can list dozens of things which are more valuable, fulfilling, and beneficial longterm than browsing macrumors or the other forums, yet for some reason I still spend time here. I definitely will be evaluating this time...
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:32 PM
That chart isn't going to fool anyone with a brain. All it shows is what is currently implemented. It says nothing about the potential contributions of all sources, how much they cost per watt, how much pollution they produce or whether or not they are renewable. It's a colorful red herring and you know it.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close. It takes THOUSANDS of giant windmills to produce what one tiny nuclear power plant can. Can we put those in your back yard? Or how about off of your state's coast? How about solar... how long exactly does it take for a solar cell to pay for itself? The chart shows that despite heavy federal subsidies that such alternatives are STILL wholly incapable of doing the job we'd need them to do without nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. The ONLY one that has proven it's worth is hydro. That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
Yes, people have much potential for stupdity. They also have much potential to accomplish great things. Even (especially) without government holding their hands.
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
You're operating under a few false assumptions. First, bio fuels do not have to compete with food at all. Switch grass, moss, algae digesters, etc... its a quickly evolving world. Second, a great deal of our food price is wrapped up into transportation of said food. Third, using corn for fuel doesn't mean people go hungry, it only means that the price of corn goes up. Consequently prices of other goods might go up or down. What we probably agree on is that ethanol, etc. should not be subsidized.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close. It takes THOUSANDS of giant windmills to produce what one tiny nuclear power plant can. Can we put those in your back yard? Or how about off of your state's coast? How about solar... how long exactly does it take for a solar cell to pay for itself? The chart shows that despite heavy federal subsidies that such alternatives are STILL wholly incapable of doing the job we'd need them to do without nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. The ONLY one that has proven it's worth is hydro. That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
Yes, people have much potential for stupdity. They also have much potential to accomplish great things. Even (especially) without government holding their hands.
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
You're operating under a few false assumptions. First, bio fuels do not have to compete with food at all. Switch grass, moss, algae digesters, etc... its a quickly evolving world. Second, a great deal of our food price is wrapped up into transportation of said food. Third, using corn for fuel doesn't mean people go hungry, it only means that the price of corn goes up. Consequently prices of other goods might go up or down. What we probably agree on is that ethanol, etc. should not be subsidized.
SPUY767
Sep 26, 09:33 AM
Software makers are the ones holding computing back in this arena. They refuse to accept that CPUs aren't going to get any faster, and that they are going to have to make their applications multi-threaded. This is especially true for games. The time has come, however, and software publishers are going to have to either make their applications massively-multithreaded, or fall to the wayside and be overtaken by an amateur application maker that is already making multi-threaded apps.
My 2.66GHz MacPro doesn't use all four cores except on rare occassions (e.g. benchmarks, quicktime, handbrake, etc.) and even then it doesn't peg them all. What I'm most interested in is offloading OpenGL to a core, the GUI to another core, etc.
Use BOINC, that will peg all four of your cores.
My 2.66GHz MacPro doesn't use all four cores except on rare occassions (e.g. benchmarks, quicktime, handbrake, etc.) and even then it doesn't peg them all. What I'm most interested in is offloading OpenGL to a core, the GUI to another core, etc.
Use BOINC, that will peg all four of your cores.
sblasl
Oct 28, 02:25 PM
Has any one installed a Western Digital Raptor X WD1500AHFD 150GB 10,000 RPM 16MB Cache Serial ATA150 Hard Drive in one of the current systems to use as their boot drive?
Rodimus Prime
Oct 7, 06:06 PM
Valid points, except you're looking at a micro-niche of power-users, while the iPhone's massive growth comes from a much broader market than that. Android will (and does) take some power-user market share, and I look forward to seeing where it goes.
The big thing though is DEVELOPER share. Apps. Android will run--in different flavors--on a number of different phones, offering choice in screen size, features, hard vs. virtual keys, etc. That sounds great--but will the same APP run on all those flavors? No. The app market will be fragmented among incompatible models. There's no good way out of that--it's one advantage Apple's model will hang on to.
I was thinking about it and come to think about it the different flavors of phones still comes down to the OS being the same. Just look at OSX and Windows, people test it on the OS but do not test it on all the hardware configurations. Hell if you just go with Macs you have an insane number which is small compared to windows.
You test it on the OS and call it good you might test it on 2-3 types of hardware if you are being very careful but most of the time if it works on one it is going to work on them all.. Android will be the same.
The big thing though is DEVELOPER share. Apps. Android will run--in different flavors--on a number of different phones, offering choice in screen size, features, hard vs. virtual keys, etc. That sounds great--but will the same APP run on all those flavors? No. The app market will be fragmented among incompatible models. There's no good way out of that--it's one advantage Apple's model will hang on to.
I was thinking about it and come to think about it the different flavors of phones still comes down to the OS being the same. Just look at OSX and Windows, people test it on the OS but do not test it on all the hardware configurations. Hell if you just go with Macs you have an insane number which is small compared to windows.
You test it on the OS and call it good you might test it on 2-3 types of hardware if you are being very careful but most of the time if it works on one it is going to work on them all.. Android will be the same.
matticus008
Mar 19, 06:00 PM
He just wants to play his music on Linux, is there something wrong with that? Are you saying that Linux is bad, and Apple is good? Do you think that Apple is doing the right thing by not preventing these issues in the first place (by failing to open up technology standards or port multimedia software to other operating systems)? I really don't think that it would be terribly difficult to port iTunes or Quicktime to Linux.
Yes, there is something wrong with that. You agreed when you created your account that you would use iTunes. You as a citizen, agree not to break the laws. Using iTunes songs in Linux breaks both of those agreements. Linux is great (I'm a Linux sysadmin, as a matter of fact), but you know going into a purchase agreement that iTunes does not support Linux. Apple should make iTunes for Linux, sure. But violating the TOS and breaking laws left and right isn't really going to convince them to do it.
If you have Linux, then iTunes really isn't a legal option for you. Get your music elsewhere and write a letter to Apple, or use another computer for iTunes and use CDs or one of the thousands of network audio streaming packages available for Linux. You do not have the right to break DRM or to use something other than iTunes to get music from iTMS, period. It's that simple.
Yes, there is something wrong with that. You agreed when you created your account that you would use iTunes. You as a citizen, agree not to break the laws. Using iTunes songs in Linux breaks both of those agreements. Linux is great (I'm a Linux sysadmin, as a matter of fact), but you know going into a purchase agreement that iTunes does not support Linux. Apple should make iTunes for Linux, sure. But violating the TOS and breaking laws left and right isn't really going to convince them to do it.
If you have Linux, then iTunes really isn't a legal option for you. Get your music elsewhere and write a letter to Apple, or use another computer for iTunes and use CDs or one of the thousands of network audio streaming packages available for Linux. You do not have the right to break DRM or to use something other than iTunes to get music from iTMS, period. It's that simple.
Clive At Five
Sep 21, 04:56 PM
Either way, I am still willing to bet for a large family, cable is significantly cheaper (especially when you take into account all the TV watched for "background noise" (such as the food network)).
Hey, I watch the Food Network! Iron Chef rocks and Rachael Ray is a kitchen fox! Are those on the iTS?
-Clive
Hey, I watch the Food Network! Iron Chef rocks and Rachael Ray is a kitchen fox! Are those on the iTS?
-Clive
0 comments:
Post a Comment