flopticalcube
Apr 25, 10:47 AM
Sense tells me that the truth value of God's existence is unknowable. However, in my opinion, it's not just unknowable but also totally irrelevant for how we should live. In other words, it is not important to know if there is a God or not. Is that closer to agnosticism or to atheism (if we separate these two notions completely)?
Absolutely correct. It is irrelevant because it is unknowable so let's not pretend or imagine or try to know the unknowable. Let's live our lives in peace.
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
Absolutely correct. It is irrelevant because it is unknowable so let's not pretend or imagine or try to know the unknowable. Let's live our lives in peace.
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
mpstrex
Aug 30, 11:09 AM
Something just dawned on me. Like when Macrumors (or someone) posted that Rush Limbaugh was selling his broadcasts for MP3 players, people here were divided. And it's the same thing with Greenpeace. We're fighting over idealistic opinions.
Maybe we should focus our attention on fighting for the Apple and all its greatness (and some not-so-great things), instead of against each other.
Maybe we should focus our attention on fighting for the Apple and all its greatness (and some not-so-great things), instead of against each other.
AppliedVisual
Oct 14, 03:04 AM
Just one tidbit of information if anyone is considerng a DVI-DL switch for their 30" (Dell or Apple) displays...
DO NOT buy the Gefen 2x1 switcher. It's based on a previous chipset that requires the user to disassemble the unit to adjust an internal sync knob! Additionally, it requires the use of two external dials (one for each input) to try and synchronize the signal!!! There isn't enough adjustment in all three dials to make much difference and while I could sync either my PC or my G5 quad just fine, I couldn't get them both to sync at all.
The 4x1 switcher is new hardware that auto syncs as it should and it works great.
These switchers come with DVI-DL cables, but if you need longer ones, buy cables from www.monoprice.com -- great cables, they work wonderfully and they have the best prices by far. Sorry for the shameless plug, but I can't stand overpaying for cables and I'm not affiliated with that store in any way. Also a gread source for cables if you just want to run your monitor farther away from your computer because it only comes with a 2M cable.
Oh, and you must have a DVI-DL source to connect to both the Dell and the Apple 30". If your system only has regular DVI, it will not work, you will get a garbage signal. Even if you run at a lower resolution that standard DVI supports, these two displays only accept a DVI-DL connection. It's a bunch of crap that it works that way, but just thought I'd give everyone a heads-up who may not have experience with them. When Apple and Dell say it needs a DVI-DL interface, it's not that they want you to buy a new video card, it's that these displays truly do require one.
DO NOT buy the Gefen 2x1 switcher. It's based on a previous chipset that requires the user to disassemble the unit to adjust an internal sync knob! Additionally, it requires the use of two external dials (one for each input) to try and synchronize the signal!!! There isn't enough adjustment in all three dials to make much difference and while I could sync either my PC or my G5 quad just fine, I couldn't get them both to sync at all.
The 4x1 switcher is new hardware that auto syncs as it should and it works great.
These switchers come with DVI-DL cables, but if you need longer ones, buy cables from www.monoprice.com -- great cables, they work wonderfully and they have the best prices by far. Sorry for the shameless plug, but I can't stand overpaying for cables and I'm not affiliated with that store in any way. Also a gread source for cables if you just want to run your monitor farther away from your computer because it only comes with a 2M cable.
Oh, and you must have a DVI-DL source to connect to both the Dell and the Apple 30". If your system only has regular DVI, it will not work, you will get a garbage signal. Even if you run at a lower resolution that standard DVI supports, these two displays only accept a DVI-DL connection. It's a bunch of crap that it works that way, but just thought I'd give everyone a heads-up who may not have experience with them. When Apple and Dell say it needs a DVI-DL interface, it's not that they want you to buy a new video card, it's that these displays truly do require one.
Tobsterius
Apr 13, 04:42 AM
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.
Dead on.
There is of course, a lot of questions left unanswered and X, from what I've gathered, is very much is a step down. Where's the viewer? How accurate is this 'skimming' feature? Is it as annoying as the skimming feature in iMovie?
Was trim mode improved? from what I've seen, it looks dumbed down; even more simplified than what is the current version of FCP.
Does multi-camera editing still exist?
Where are the video scopes?
Dual monitor support?
ability to open multiple projects and time lines? And for that matter, what about timeline nesting? I know they've addressed this with this 'compound clips' but can I still take one timeline and drop it into another like I can in FCP 7?
Custom keyboard mapping?
What about the slew of third party plugins and filters I've spent money on? Will they still work?
Can I still capture tape or has Apple decided (like they have with DVDs) that tape is dead?
I think that this can go on and on.
As a long time professional FCP editor, I'm worried. Not because of change-- I like change. What I hate is when they change things and feel as if they need to reinvent how editors and editing have functioned for decades.
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.
Dead on.
There is of course, a lot of questions left unanswered and X, from what I've gathered, is very much is a step down. Where's the viewer? How accurate is this 'skimming' feature? Is it as annoying as the skimming feature in iMovie?
Was trim mode improved? from what I've seen, it looks dumbed down; even more simplified than what is the current version of FCP.
Does multi-camera editing still exist?
Where are the video scopes?
Dual monitor support?
ability to open multiple projects and time lines? And for that matter, what about timeline nesting? I know they've addressed this with this 'compound clips' but can I still take one timeline and drop it into another like I can in FCP 7?
Custom keyboard mapping?
What about the slew of third party plugins and filters I've spent money on? Will they still work?
Can I still capture tape or has Apple decided (like they have with DVDs) that tape is dead?
I think that this can go on and on.
As a long time professional FCP editor, I'm worried. Not because of change-- I like change. What I hate is when they change things and feel as if they need to reinvent how editors and editing have functioned for decades.
chrono1081
Apr 20, 09:31 PM
I honestly have no idea how you have the job that you do, because you fail tremendously in this aspect.
I have the job that I do because I know MUCH more about Windows than you do obviously. If you think what I posted above is a bunch of fud then you really don't know anything about Windows OS or manual malware removal. There is all kinds of ways malware can hide and on Windows many times the only way you know its on the system is by finding altered registry keys, but removing the key doesn't remove the malware so you have to manually dig for files. Most of the time you can find them by looking but some malware uses the feature to hide folders completely even if you tell the system to show all files. If you want a prime example of a virus that does this look up and infect your system with Oboma (yes its spelled incorrectly). It went around our workplace all the time and most of the time it used the file hiding technique mentioned above. Another is WD32Silly (or something close to that). Thats another one that always did it. With over 6,000 users to support I see this stuff all the time.
EDIT: This is why tools that access files outside the OS are popular, like BartPE and various other packages. You can see these files if Windows is not booted up and your not plugging the drive into another machine.
Why do they allow the files to be hidden?
Of course if you used Norton you wouldn't have this problem. :D:D:D
Actually....we use Symantec which is the the first scanner we use which doesn't find anything ;) Or, to its credit it will find something, but not remove it (hence how we find out the names half of the time). Honestly though you really want multi-layered scanning. If the program on the computer doesn't catch anything it goes to IT and we scan it with other tools, as a last resort we will manually remove it but if it doesn't work or ends up being to "messy" the machine gets re-imaged.
I have the job that I do because I know MUCH more about Windows than you do obviously. If you think what I posted above is a bunch of fud then you really don't know anything about Windows OS or manual malware removal. There is all kinds of ways malware can hide and on Windows many times the only way you know its on the system is by finding altered registry keys, but removing the key doesn't remove the malware so you have to manually dig for files. Most of the time you can find them by looking but some malware uses the feature to hide folders completely even if you tell the system to show all files. If you want a prime example of a virus that does this look up and infect your system with Oboma (yes its spelled incorrectly). It went around our workplace all the time and most of the time it used the file hiding technique mentioned above. Another is WD32Silly (or something close to that). Thats another one that always did it. With over 6,000 users to support I see this stuff all the time.
EDIT: This is why tools that access files outside the OS are popular, like BartPE and various other packages. You can see these files if Windows is not booted up and your not plugging the drive into another machine.
Why do they allow the files to be hidden?
Of course if you used Norton you wouldn't have this problem. :D:D:D
Actually....we use Symantec which is the the first scanner we use which doesn't find anything ;) Or, to its credit it will find something, but not remove it (hence how we find out the names half of the time). Honestly though you really want multi-layered scanning. If the program on the computer doesn't catch anything it goes to IT and we scan it with other tools, as a last resort we will manually remove it but if it doesn't work or ends up being to "messy" the machine gets re-imaged.
adamfilip
Jul 12, 08:44 AM
i think all the new mac pro will be quad core xeons (2 chips) just range in frequency.
cadillaccactus
Aug 29, 12:54 PM
I have been a devout mac user for a while now. I get wrapped up in the apple-is-always-right mindset plenty of the time. But greenpeace is a neutral third party evaluating a number of tech companies. While GP may hold companies to a high standard, and judge critically, there is no reason for us to assume that they rated one company in a spearate fashion.
I would like to see a more formal reponse from apple.
I would like to see a more formal reponse from apple.
pink-pony115
Aug 30, 01:01 AM
ooooooooooh no is the world coming to a end?
R-E-L-A-X fello MR peeps :cool:
R-E-L-A-X fello MR peeps :cool:
Gelfin
Mar 27, 05:08 PM
But no one here has proved that Nicolosi is an unreliable representative of his field. If someone proves that Nicolosi is mistaken, maybe no one will need to attack him.
No one has to. Modern psychology already did, as has been repeated over and over again. Nicolosi is not Galileo. He's the geocentrist.
No one has to. Modern psychology already did, as has been repeated over and over again. Nicolosi is not Galileo. He's the geocentrist.
digitalbiker
Sep 12, 04:20 PM
Wouldn't you rather pay for only the shows that you watch?
Movies, maybe.
But if you are going to be charging me for every news, weather, sports, or entertainment program that I watch on a daily basis it is going to have to be a lot, lot, less than paying for satellite / cable and watching what I want.
I think the current price for satellite / cable is reasonable but if a service is going to charge me per show, they would have to charge pennies for it. Otherwise it just wouldn't be competitive price-wise.
Movies, maybe.
But if you are going to be charging me for every news, weather, sports, or entertainment program that I watch on a daily basis it is going to have to be a lot, lot, less than paying for satellite / cable and watching what I want.
I think the current price for satellite / cable is reasonable but if a service is going to charge me per show, they would have to charge pennies for it. Otherwise it just wouldn't be competitive price-wise.
Sm0kejaguar
Oct 26, 11:09 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
Thats what i'm worried about!!! Ahhhhh!!! guess i can always wait a month and pay my 250 dollar restock!
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
Thats what i'm worried about!!! Ahhhhh!!! guess i can always wait a month and pay my 250 dollar restock!
Blackcat
Mar 19, 04:39 PM
Firstly, let me say I'm against DRM if it restricts me using my own music I've paid for, but equally I see why artists don't want me uploading my iTunes Library to Gnutella.
Now, this "I do it to help Linux" excuse, it's rubbish. I've no objection to people choosing Linux (I use it on several servers) but to then moan it can't do xyz is crazy. If you need to watch DVDs, access iTunes, play The Sims, use Word etc then you should be running an OS that can do those things not by hacking support by illegal means. I understand the frustration of not being supported, but again it was by choice, lobby Apple to do Linux iTunes.
I applaud this software for giving me my usage rights back, but lets not make DVD Jon a hero of Linux, he just likes beating the system.
Now, this "I do it to help Linux" excuse, it's rubbish. I've no objection to people choosing Linux (I use it on several servers) but to then moan it can't do xyz is crazy. If you need to watch DVDs, access iTunes, play The Sims, use Word etc then you should be running an OS that can do those things not by hacking support by illegal means. I understand the frustration of not being supported, but again it was by choice, lobby Apple to do Linux iTunes.
I applaud this software for giving me my usage rights back, but lets not make DVD Jon a hero of Linux, he just likes beating the system.
emotion
Sep 21, 01:39 PM
My point is that it's possible that the "network can't cope", exactly.
Hence the HD as cache perhaps?
Hence the HD as cache perhaps?
AppliedVisual
Oct 25, 01:17 AM
AV/multimedia, how far do you sit from your screen?
I sit about 35 to 40" from my 30" display. Seems to be about the ideal distance. I keep the height adjusted so my eyes looking straight ahead are about 1/4 of the way down from the top of the screen. My primary display is centered straight ahead and the secondary display is on my left on an angle. Works very well. Took some getting used to as I've always had my secondary monitor on the right, but with the room layout, it worked better on the left at my new place. Ah, it's late, but I'll post a picture tomorrow tomorrow night so you can get a feel for what we're talking about. These Dell 30-inchers are just plain cool.
Other than that, I second everything Multimedia said... Although, I already bought my second Dell 30" when it broke the $1400 mark. it's just too cool having 2 of these side by side. It's almost surreal having this kind of desktop real estate. Just be aware that with the G5 Macs, you need an FX4000 of FX4500 video card to use two of these. With the Mac Pro, the FX4500 again, or the ATI X1900xt will run dual 30" displays as well and is a bargain at $240 upgrade when ordering.
I sit about 35 to 40" from my 30" display. Seems to be about the ideal distance. I keep the height adjusted so my eyes looking straight ahead are about 1/4 of the way down from the top of the screen. My primary display is centered straight ahead and the secondary display is on my left on an angle. Works very well. Took some getting used to as I've always had my secondary monitor on the right, but with the room layout, it worked better on the left at my new place. Ah, it's late, but I'll post a picture tomorrow tomorrow night so you can get a feel for what we're talking about. These Dell 30-inchers are just plain cool.
Other than that, I second everything Multimedia said... Although, I already bought my second Dell 30" when it broke the $1400 mark. it's just too cool having 2 of these side by side. It's almost surreal having this kind of desktop real estate. Just be aware that with the G5 Macs, you need an FX4000 of FX4500 video card to use two of these. With the Mac Pro, the FX4500 again, or the ATI X1900xt will run dual 30" displays as well and is a bargain at $240 upgrade when ordering.
mdelvecchio
Apr 21, 02:53 PM
As of now android is predominately a smartphone OS. It is on tablets but it has not really began yet. In a few years looking at tablet OSs I believe it would be interesting where android will stand in comparison to apple.
still not raking in the huge lion's share of industry profits? apple is, android manufacturers arent.
still not raking in the huge lion's share of industry profits? apple is, android manufacturers arent.
mcrain
Mar 16, 12:35 PM
Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
digitalbiker
Aug 29, 11:11 PM
The experts in this area all agree on CO2, caused by oxidation (burning) fossile fuel, is by far the most significant factor in the change of our climate.
This just isn't true!
It depends on which experts you ask. Most classic geophysicists & geologists do not believe man is causing global warming. Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models. But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
This just isn't true!
It depends on which experts you ask. Most classic geophysicists & geologists do not believe man is causing global warming. Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models. But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
appleguy123
Apr 22, 10:56 PM
On other forums, people complain about the word agnostic.
>agnostic theist- I believe in god, but have no knowledge of him.
>agnostic atheist- I don't belief in god, but I don't claim a special source of knowledge for that disbelief
>gnostic theist-I know that is a god!
>gnostic atheist-I know there is no god with the same degree of certainty that the theist knows there is one.
I don't think that many would call themselves a gnostic atheist, I certainly don't.
>agnostic theist- I believe in god, but have no knowledge of him.
>agnostic atheist- I don't belief in god, but I don't claim a special source of knowledge for that disbelief
>gnostic theist-I know that is a god!
>gnostic atheist-I know there is no god with the same degree of certainty that the theist knows there is one.
I don't think that many would call themselves a gnostic atheist, I certainly don't.
alust2013
Apr 5, 05:31 PM
You may not like the lack of start menu at first, however, it does end up working with a better flow overall. It's just different at first, and after using windows for many years (little bit of 3.1, a lot of 95 and 98, then ME, XP and 7), it took a little bit to get used to, but honestly not that long. You get the basic idea of where stuff is pretty quick, and it's certainly not difficult, especially if you are reasonably proficient in computers.
gugy
Sep 12, 04:05 PM
I have to disagree with many of the comments on this thread. I think this is an ideal device. I don't want a computer connected to my TV I want to gain access to the content on my computer on my TV. It is two different ways of looking at these products.
As far as not having a DVR/tuner that should be done on your computer. The products available from elgato eyeTV etc. are already excellent and probably much better then Apple could start up and hope to compete with. EyeTV is already compatible with iTunes and the iPod, and it will be for this too. You just have to realize that the recording is going to happen at your computer not your TV. I really think the combination of eyeTV, iTunes and iTV is going to be much better then any competitors MCE etc.
It all goes back to Apple's philosophy of making the computer the center of your digital life. The TV is just a tool now to view what you have on your computer.
This does also offer one advantage over the mini besides price component video.
Ditto.
I think the idea is brilliant if it work flawlessly. If the wireless transmission is great then this will be a killer product.
Why not buy Elgato, They make good stuff and Apple do not have to worry about networks being mad at them for making a dvr.
Guys this is the future.
It seems that will stream HDTV content, so I have my Elgato recording my favorite show in HDTV than it streams it to my flat panel and I can control it from my couch without having to go back to my computer on the other room.
I can access the itunes store, see my photos listen my music, etc.
What else you guys want?
As far as not having a DVR/tuner that should be done on your computer. The products available from elgato eyeTV etc. are already excellent and probably much better then Apple could start up and hope to compete with. EyeTV is already compatible with iTunes and the iPod, and it will be for this too. You just have to realize that the recording is going to happen at your computer not your TV. I really think the combination of eyeTV, iTunes and iTV is going to be much better then any competitors MCE etc.
It all goes back to Apple's philosophy of making the computer the center of your digital life. The TV is just a tool now to view what you have on your computer.
This does also offer one advantage over the mini besides price component video.
Ditto.
I think the idea is brilliant if it work flawlessly. If the wireless transmission is great then this will be a killer product.
Why not buy Elgato, They make good stuff and Apple do not have to worry about networks being mad at them for making a dvr.
Guys this is the future.
It seems that will stream HDTV content, so I have my Elgato recording my favorite show in HDTV than it streams it to my flat panel and I can control it from my couch without having to go back to my computer on the other room.
I can access the itunes store, see my photos listen my music, etc.
What else you guys want?
mdntcallr
Sep 20, 12:36 AM
Sounds like a very cool device.
But to be honest, I am hoping this is just one device of many TV integrated services for apple.
ie,
1- more dvr hdtv functionality
2- hdmi output in 1080p for television of computer and hdtv content
3- blu-ray drive for movies and for data use
4- Apple Televisions/monitors (yes tv's with speakers and hdmi inputs in addition to computer inputs)
5- Itunes movie shop with HDTV Rentals, not have to purchase everything, but instead be able to rent with unlimited views for 1 week. and viewing window can start when user initiates, ie, download lots of movies for a trip, then go view
well i can always hope. :-)
lets hope for a 60" Apple tv/monitor is coming for release soon. this would power a home theater and be usable for much more
But to be honest, I am hoping this is just one device of many TV integrated services for apple.
ie,
1- more dvr hdtv functionality
2- hdmi output in 1080p for television of computer and hdtv content
3- blu-ray drive for movies and for data use
4- Apple Televisions/monitors (yes tv's with speakers and hdmi inputs in addition to computer inputs)
5- Itunes movie shop with HDTV Rentals, not have to purchase everything, but instead be able to rent with unlimited views for 1 week. and viewing window can start when user initiates, ie, download lots of movies for a trip, then go view
well i can always hope. :-)
lets hope for a 60" Apple tv/monitor is coming for release soon. this would power a home theater and be usable for much more
Backtothemac
Oct 8, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by ryme4reson
I for one think the current lines of macs are MUCH slower than the current comparable PCs. And to Back to the Mac, you may have heard of piplines and branches etc.. but do you have any idea what you are talking about?
"25 years old arch... the x86 sucks" Well you enjoy OS X and that's 25+ architecture also, so whats your point? Also, I think it is very hard to compare a Dual 1.25 to a single 2 Gig processor. Especially when the price difference is 500-1000+ I mean I would pay for performance, but the Macs are more than that. I am on a 1.6Athlon at school right now and it kicks the **** out of my 933. This 1.6 has 512 Ram I have 1.28GIGS. Simple things like starting Explorer to read macrumors is executed with NO DELAY. Bringing up Control Panels is also instantanious. I dont mind the fact my G-4 is slower, I enjoy OSX and my mac, but as far as speed I think you BACKTOTHEMAC needs to open your eyes.
Why is the PC faster? It is the OS, not the processor. Windblows uses .dll's Dynamic link libraries. They allow programs to load only what is needed (GUI, and primary API's) and then load pieces of the program as the user uses it. Macs on the other hand load all of the program into memory because, Mac's don't use dll files. So. It takes longer to load a program on a Mac, however once loaded the program will actually perform faster.
As far as Macs being slower at everything. Dude, you obviously have not put a PowerBook up against a PC based notebook recentlly have you? See we sell IBM and Apple. We recently put my 667 up against a 2.0GHZ IBM laptop. The 667 was faster at everything in photoshop than the PC, encoded MP3's faster, and the only it did slower was render HTML. Now you say how much faster? Doesn't matter. If it was .1 seconds faster, it still shows the superiority of the PPC design.
Sure OS X is a 25 year old architecture. My reference is to the flaws of the X86 vs the PPC architecture. If you would like to discuss the flaws in Windows compared to OSX. Well, arn would have to make a dedicated topic for us to discuss it.
Macs run slower than winblows machines. So what. Would you really like to run winblows fast? That would be cool. Sure my machine goes 2.8GHZ, but it crashes once a day. I have never crashed X. Not even when it was a PB. Oh, and btw. I am an MCP, and Apple certified, so yes, I do know what I am talking about.
I for one think the current lines of macs are MUCH slower than the current comparable PCs. And to Back to the Mac, you may have heard of piplines and branches etc.. but do you have any idea what you are talking about?
"25 years old arch... the x86 sucks" Well you enjoy OS X and that's 25+ architecture also, so whats your point? Also, I think it is very hard to compare a Dual 1.25 to a single 2 Gig processor. Especially when the price difference is 500-1000+ I mean I would pay for performance, but the Macs are more than that. I am on a 1.6Athlon at school right now and it kicks the **** out of my 933. This 1.6 has 512 Ram I have 1.28GIGS. Simple things like starting Explorer to read macrumors is executed with NO DELAY. Bringing up Control Panels is also instantanious. I dont mind the fact my G-4 is slower, I enjoy OSX and my mac, but as far as speed I think you BACKTOTHEMAC needs to open your eyes.
Why is the PC faster? It is the OS, not the processor. Windblows uses .dll's Dynamic link libraries. They allow programs to load only what is needed (GUI, and primary API's) and then load pieces of the program as the user uses it. Macs on the other hand load all of the program into memory because, Mac's don't use dll files. So. It takes longer to load a program on a Mac, however once loaded the program will actually perform faster.
As far as Macs being slower at everything. Dude, you obviously have not put a PowerBook up against a PC based notebook recentlly have you? See we sell IBM and Apple. We recently put my 667 up against a 2.0GHZ IBM laptop. The 667 was faster at everything in photoshop than the PC, encoded MP3's faster, and the only it did slower was render HTML. Now you say how much faster? Doesn't matter. If it was .1 seconds faster, it still shows the superiority of the PPC design.
Sure OS X is a 25 year old architecture. My reference is to the flaws of the X86 vs the PPC architecture. If you would like to discuss the flaws in Windows compared to OSX. Well, arn would have to make a dedicated topic for us to discuss it.
Macs run slower than winblows machines. So what. Would you really like to run winblows fast? That would be cool. Sure my machine goes 2.8GHZ, but it crashes once a day. I have never crashed X. Not even when it was a PB. Oh, and btw. I am an MCP, and Apple certified, so yes, I do know what I am talking about.
JFreak
Jul 12, 05:39 AM
Well, the Mini got more expensive, but it's capabilities went WAY up. Optical audio in and out, twice the USB-ports (fixing the two biggest complaints about the old Mini)
Way, costs about $1 for Apple to fix it. Great!
... built-in wireless, about twice as fast CPU and Core Image compliant video.
You cannot put a price tag for components such as CPU and GPU that get updated with every single hardware revision. Yes, in time they become more capable with every revision, but the relative price of such components does not change that much. The built-in wireless on the other hand is something of extra value; however, Apple cuts its own costs of eliminating an option, so it should not cost the customer that much extra.
Comparing price and capabilities, The Mini just got a whole lot cheaper :). The low-end Mini costs the same as the old hi-end Mini, but the new low-end Mini is a lot better than the old hi-end Mini.
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper. Didn't your mother teach you that?
your all looking at the server specs which have no need for more than 8x pci-e, if that.
At what point servers began to demand less than workstations or regular desktops? Server-grade hardware (SCSI cards for example) are 8x pcie, so I expect nothing less from Apple server hardware. Anything less would be a joke.
Way, costs about $1 for Apple to fix it. Great!
... built-in wireless, about twice as fast CPU and Core Image compliant video.
You cannot put a price tag for components such as CPU and GPU that get updated with every single hardware revision. Yes, in time they become more capable with every revision, but the relative price of such components does not change that much. The built-in wireless on the other hand is something of extra value; however, Apple cuts its own costs of eliminating an option, so it should not cost the customer that much extra.
Comparing price and capabilities, The Mini just got a whole lot cheaper :). The low-end Mini costs the same as the old hi-end Mini, but the new low-end Mini is a lot better than the old hi-end Mini.
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper. Didn't your mother teach you that?
your all looking at the server specs which have no need for more than 8x pci-e, if that.
At what point servers began to demand less than workstations or regular desktops? Server-grade hardware (SCSI cards for example) are 8x pcie, so I expect nothing less from Apple server hardware. Anything less would be a joke.
rasmasyean
Mar 13, 10:45 PM
That's a pretty short sighted idea. Even if that were an effective way to stop a tsunami do you really think it's very wise to drop radioactive waste on all of our problems?
Well they shot a lot of nukes at Bikini Atol and that was near the islands where they can observer it. It didn't "create a tsunami" either. Maybe some small waves and such only and they fired off a lot of nukes there. Of course there will be some degree of radioactivity increase, but think about how much damage a tsunami like this does. It's a tradeoff.
Well they shot a lot of nukes at Bikini Atol and that was near the islands where they can observer it. It didn't "create a tsunami" either. Maybe some small waves and such only and they fired off a lot of nukes there. Of course there will be some degree of radioactivity increase, but think about how much damage a tsunami like this does. It's a tradeoff.