torbjoern
Apr 24, 12:23 PM
What about fear of hell in the afterlife? Pretty powerful motivator that. Most mainstream religions still cling to this notion.
There are hells (known as "naraga") in Hinduism and Buddhism too, but none of them are eternal and all of them are only for people who have done really bad things in life - regardless of faith or lack thereof.
Christian believers who are enslaved by their fear of hell, as opposed to having their faith based on genuine love to God, will allegedly end up in hell anyway.
There are hells (known as "naraga") in Hinduism and Buddhism too, but none of them are eternal and all of them are only for people who have done really bad things in life - regardless of faith or lack thereof.
Christian believers who are enslaved by their fear of hell, as opposed to having their faith based on genuine love to God, will allegedly end up in hell anyway.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 02:13 PM
Many people say this, but they fail at the point where actions are of culture and not representative of the religion itself.
I invite you to demonstrate how Islam is a threat to freedom and democracy.
The Qur'an is considered the perfect and literal word of allah.
muhammad is considered allah's perfect man and messenger on earth to be emulated by all men.
Sharia law is derived from the qur'an and the sayings of muhammad (hadith, sunna).
Secular Democracy and democratic laws are made by human beings.
Human beings are necessarily not as perfect as God.
Therefore, under Islam adhering to man-made laws over divinely mandated laws is considered blasphemy.
I invite you to demonstrate how Islam is a threat to freedom and democracy.
The Qur'an is considered the perfect and literal word of allah.
muhammad is considered allah's perfect man and messenger on earth to be emulated by all men.
Sharia law is derived from the qur'an and the sayings of muhammad (hadith, sunna).
Secular Democracy and democratic laws are made by human beings.
Human beings are necessarily not as perfect as God.
Therefore, under Islam adhering to man-made laws over divinely mandated laws is considered blasphemy.
CaoCao
Apr 22, 08:00 PM
This makeup of this forum's members intrigues mean slightly. Why are most of the posters here Atheists? Is it part of the Mac using demographic, the Internet in general's demographic, or are Atheists just the most interested in Politics, Religon, and Social Issues?
iz cald teh interwebz, der r lotz ov werd peplz hre.
The internet has a lot of anarchists too, they typically think they are one of the few people who have broken free of the slave mindset of their country
iz cald teh interwebz, der r lotz ov werd peplz hre.
The internet has a lot of anarchists too, they typically think they are one of the few people who have broken free of the slave mindset of their country
wkhahn
Sep 22, 09:11 AM
Hey, I watch the Food Network! Iron Chef rocks and Rachael Ray is a kitchen fox! Are those on the iTS?
-Clive
Raytard is not a "Kitchen Fox". For that, just watch Giada.
-Clive
Raytard is not a "Kitchen Fox". For that, just watch Giada.
rjjkp
May 31, 09:22 PM
:apple: How would you go about finding out if a phone or carrier service worked in a certain area if you didn't consult other people or credible sources? Wouldn't you have to make a decision based on 'Other Peoples Opinions' in order to find out? If you know Verizon service yields 0 bars in your area do you know this as a previous Verizon service customer, consult someone directly or take the 'Opinion' of the AT&T salesman?
Are you so inflexible as to believe no one in the universe has occasional connection problems? Do you live under an AT&T tower and never stray far from it? I'm looking to get an iPhone in 2 months and I hope it really is as reliable as you describe.
I have set up a contract with a provider BEFORE committing to a long iphone contract. I go into the said telephone store and set up some other non iphone device. Then return home and test its capability and signal strength. If it is acceptable I return the above phone for a full refund(I use it far less than the maximum 30 days. Then when the desired iphone is purchased I will expect the same performance.
Are you so inflexible as to believe no one in the universe has occasional connection problems? Do you live under an AT&T tower and never stray far from it? I'm looking to get an iPhone in 2 months and I hope it really is as reliable as you describe.
I have set up a contract with a provider BEFORE committing to a long iphone contract. I go into the said telephone store and set up some other non iphone device. Then return home and test its capability and signal strength. If it is acceptable I return the above phone for a full refund(I use it far less than the maximum 30 days. Then when the desired iphone is purchased I will expect the same performance.
odedia
Jul 12, 12:00 AM
Hate to say I told you so (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2559135#post2559135) ;)
Oded S.
Oded S.
SRSound
Oct 31, 12:46 PM
Nothing will be better for complex music work than an 8-core Mac Pro. I admire your courage to realize the 4-core Mac Pro was more of a stop gap model than what the market needs longer term.
Can you elaborate on that? I have a pending Mac Pro purchase for my recording studio, based on Pro Tools, and I can't decide if I would benefit from the additional cores. I know Pro Tools can't utilize more then 2 at a time, but I'm wondering if all the additional processing (virtual effects, instruments, etc) would get a boost...
Can you elaborate on that? I have a pending Mac Pro purchase for my recording studio, based on Pro Tools, and I can't decide if I would benefit from the additional cores. I know Pro Tools can't utilize more then 2 at a time, but I'm wondering if all the additional processing (virtual effects, instruments, etc) would get a boost...
Small White Car
Aug 29, 11:15 AM
:rolleyes:
Great ideas, folks.
Dell is doing something better than Apple? Well then the report must be wrong!
Problem solved, good job guys!
Great ideas, folks.
Dell is doing something better than Apple? Well then the report must be wrong!
Problem solved, good job guys!
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 04:15 PM
:eek:
Why the vitriol against Greenpeace? It appears that a lot of people on this forum HATE them. What have they done to deserve this?
I dont hate them i like what they are TRYING to do, they just aren't doing it.
Why the vitriol against Greenpeace? It appears that a lot of people on this forum HATE them. What have they done to deserve this?
I dont hate them i like what they are TRYING to do, they just aren't doing it.
AP_piano295
Apr 22, 08:21 PM
Nope, most people identify with atheism but when challenged to defend their points they just say "because God doesn't exist" or something along those lines. They don't try to do the simple paradox argument, or the existence of evil argument. It would therefore lead me to conclude that they're atheists because they were exposed to it in pop culture or something.
When someone tries to say there must be a God because the probability of mankind existing is x I counter it with "In a universe that is thought to be forever cycling through big bangs and big crunches eternally probability becomes meaningless. Intelligent life would eventually evolve anyway, without a divine hand to guide it.
There are arguments and counter-arguments to both camps, which is why I choose to be agnostos. In the face of a dearth of evidence it's more rational to withhold judgment than leap to an extreme position.
There is no reason to imagine that god does exist, one doesn't need to provide a reason for not believing in god.
Can you provide me an argument for why you don't believe in witches or Santa?
EDIT: It is not reasonable to imagine that something does exist just because there is no evidence to support its existence (in case this isn't obvious :/ )
When someone tries to say there must be a God because the probability of mankind existing is x I counter it with "In a universe that is thought to be forever cycling through big bangs and big crunches eternally probability becomes meaningless. Intelligent life would eventually evolve anyway, without a divine hand to guide it.
There are arguments and counter-arguments to both camps, which is why I choose to be agnostos. In the face of a dearth of evidence it's more rational to withhold judgment than leap to an extreme position.
There is no reason to imagine that god does exist, one doesn't need to provide a reason for not believing in god.
Can you provide me an argument for why you don't believe in witches or Santa?
EDIT: It is not reasonable to imagine that something does exist just because there is no evidence to support its existence (in case this isn't obvious :/ )
Th3Crow
May 3, 10:29 AM
You mean running stuff like iphoto?
PC versions of cross platform apps are typically faster, have more features than their mac counterparts. That's if there even is a version for mac. Its viable to not own a PC anymore because macs use PC hardware now and can run windows. PC users have no use for osx at all but many mac users still need to have windows
I would dispute your claims that PC versions are faster and more feature-laden than their Mac versions. And sure, there is going to be some software for which there is no Mac counterpart. But the same can be said for the reverse. It's not like the 90s - back then this was a valid argument. Today it's a much different story; the Mac marketshare has risen to a point where it is in the best interests of software developers to create a Mac version.
There are indeed PC versions for most everything I do on my Mac. My point was simply that it tends to be easier to do on the Mac, and much less frustrating. Having used both, I can tell you that (IMO) Macs make the work seem much less cumbersome. I enjoy creating promotional videos, for example on my Mac. Or fun videos of my kids (using iMovie - which makes it so fast and easy - and professional looking - that the kids can put on a skit at the beginning of a birthday party, and at the end of the party I can give each child a DVD of their skit to take home). Doing it on a PC is painful. Graphic design and web development is fantastic on the Mac - and just plain irritating on a PC.
We can debate this until we're blue in the face - this is just my opinion as a heavy user of myriad applications, and I will concede that I have not tried every possible text editor out there to see if something compares to BBEdit. But I don't need to. I love my Mac - always have - and I really hate the experience on a Windows PC. But if you are as happy on your PC as I am with my Mac, I'm not going to call you names or belittle your choice. To each their own. I just take issue with the whole idea that we Mac users NEED to run Windows. We don't. Ever.
PC versions of cross platform apps are typically faster, have more features than their mac counterparts. That's if there even is a version for mac. Its viable to not own a PC anymore because macs use PC hardware now and can run windows. PC users have no use for osx at all but many mac users still need to have windows
I would dispute your claims that PC versions are faster and more feature-laden than their Mac versions. And sure, there is going to be some software for which there is no Mac counterpart. But the same can be said for the reverse. It's not like the 90s - back then this was a valid argument. Today it's a much different story; the Mac marketshare has risen to a point where it is in the best interests of software developers to create a Mac version.
There are indeed PC versions for most everything I do on my Mac. My point was simply that it tends to be easier to do on the Mac, and much less frustrating. Having used both, I can tell you that (IMO) Macs make the work seem much less cumbersome. I enjoy creating promotional videos, for example on my Mac. Or fun videos of my kids (using iMovie - which makes it so fast and easy - and professional looking - that the kids can put on a skit at the beginning of a birthday party, and at the end of the party I can give each child a DVD of their skit to take home). Doing it on a PC is painful. Graphic design and web development is fantastic on the Mac - and just plain irritating on a PC.
We can debate this until we're blue in the face - this is just my opinion as a heavy user of myriad applications, and I will concede that I have not tried every possible text editor out there to see if something compares to BBEdit. But I don't need to. I love my Mac - always have - and I really hate the experience on a Windows PC. But if you are as happy on your PC as I am with my Mac, I'm not going to call you names or belittle your choice. To each their own. I just take issue with the whole idea that we Mac users NEED to run Windows. We don't. Ever.
AppliedVisual
Oct 29, 12:29 PM
In theory you're correct, Multimedia.
In practice, it is possible that a multi-threaded program might have synchronization or logic bugs that don't show up with 4 CPUs, but do show up with 8 CPUs. For example:
Thread_ID tid[4];
for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++)
{
%IMG_DESC_13%
%IMG_DESC_14%
%IMG_DESC_15%
%IMG_DESC_16%
%IMG_DESC_17%
%IMG_DESC_18%
In practice, it is possible that a multi-threaded program might have synchronization or logic bugs that don't show up with 4 CPUs, but do show up with 8 CPUs. For example:
Thread_ID tid[4];
for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++)
{
gugy
Sep 12, 05:19 PM
If the iTV streams HD content, then it's going to be heavily compressed HD content. Depending on the quality of the compression, it may look great on your flat panel and it may look just okay, we'll see.
Let's hope so.
I had trouble with Airtunes, so I have my fingers crossed expecting ITV will do a better job with music and videos (HDTV preferably).
If Apple can make this happen, this ITV hardware will be killer IMHO.
Let's hope so.
I had trouble with Airtunes, so I have my fingers crossed expecting ITV will do a better job with music and videos (HDTV preferably).
If Apple can make this happen, this ITV hardware will be killer IMHO.
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.
LegendKillerUK
Apr 8, 10:37 PM
Apple will buy Nintendo eventually.
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
I'd love for Pokemon to be on iOS devices.
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
I'd love for Pokemon to be on iOS devices.
leekohler
Apr 15, 10:20 AM
Agreed. But you know what, some people deserve not one ounce of respect.
You would be one of them. It stings when the mirror is held up in front of you, doesn't it? I was like you at one time too, and I know where you are right now. At some point, you will come to understand that there is a difference between people who are simply trying to be themselves (us) and people who are trying to keep us from being ourselves (social conservatives). One deserves respect, one does not.
You would be one of them. It stings when the mirror is held up in front of you, doesn't it? I was like you at one time too, and I know where you are right now. At some point, you will come to understand that there is a difference between people who are simply trying to be themselves (us) and people who are trying to keep us from being ourselves (social conservatives). One deserves respect, one does not.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 24, 10:06 PM
Yep. I've lived a completely sheltered life, never studied my faith, and certainly never questioned it- never been in any in-depth discussions of religion, and most importantly, I do not understand why I think Christianity is legitimate rather than any other religion.
I believe only the things my parents have told me, and I plug my ears whenever someone says anything different. I'm completely unaware of modern science and how some people consider it to be a religion killer.
To top it off, compared to all atheists, I'm an illiterate, illogical, southern-bred moron and I will never be able to make an educated decision for myself.
And just to be clear, I DID NOT make a 35 on the ACT my Junior year of high school, and I am not on scholarship to a top 25 university.
happy now? :cool:
No because I believe I asked a fair question and you gave me a smarmy answer.
I believe only the things my parents have told me, and I plug my ears whenever someone says anything different. I'm completely unaware of modern science and how some people consider it to be a religion killer.
To top it off, compared to all atheists, I'm an illiterate, illogical, southern-bred moron and I will never be able to make an educated decision for myself.
And just to be clear, I DID NOT make a 35 on the ACT my Junior year of high school, and I am not on scholarship to a top 25 university.
happy now? :cool:
No because I believe I asked a fair question and you gave me a smarmy answer.
AlligatorBloodz
Apr 9, 07:32 PM
It's quite obvious what Apple are doing.
They're not going to make a console as such because it's a cumbersome solution. What they'll do is continue to improve and expand their current iOS platform and the games involved.
The "console" solution they're working on is quite simple. Airplay. If the rumours are true about Apple trying to licence the tech and if we go by the relatively cheap Apple TV iteration the future is staring you in the face.
Your iPhone, iPod or iPad will become the console or the controller in the tradition console sense. Games will be sent wirelessly without lag to the TV where others can join in with their own iOS devices. The devices can change depending on the game and the flexibility of the touch screen. Once you've finished you take your iOS device with you and carry on playing on the go.
Apple will never make a traditional games console. It isn't in their DNA to make something so vulgar. They'll simply integrate experiences into a whole. Airplay is the way they'll do it in regards to the TV.
%IMG_DESC_19%
They're not going to make a console as such because it's a cumbersome solution. What they'll do is continue to improve and expand their current iOS platform and the games involved.
The "console" solution they're working on is quite simple. Airplay. If the rumours are true about Apple trying to licence the tech and if we go by the relatively cheap Apple TV iteration the future is staring you in the face.
Your iPhone, iPod or iPad will become the console or the controller in the tradition console sense. Games will be sent wirelessly without lag to the TV where others can join in with their own iOS devices. The devices can change depending on the game and the flexibility of the touch screen. Once you've finished you take your iOS device with you and carry on playing on the go.
Apple will never make a traditional games console. It isn't in their DNA to make something so vulgar. They'll simply integrate experiences into a whole. Airplay is the way they'll do it in regards to the TV.
skunk
Apr 24, 06:48 PM
I completely agree with you. These Abrahamic religions do have a lot in common.Including a completely identifiable chief god and pantheon shared with other local polytheistic religions. The only difference was that in the case of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the polytheism was suppressed and the chief god reigned unchallenged.
Nope, not in the Old Testament either. There is a recounting of events which say what happened, but there is no commandment from God to "urge the believers to battle. If there are among you 20 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 200...... And if there are among you 100 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 1000 of those who have disbelieved...(qur'an 8:65) to this day.Maybe not in those exact words, but Yahweh spoke to Gad, David's seer, saying, Go and speak to David, saying, Thus says Yahweh, I offer you three things: choose you one of them, that I may do it to you. So Gad came to David, and said to him, Thus says Yahweh, Take which you will: either three years of famine; or three months to be consumed before your foes, while the sword of your enemies overtakes you; or else three days the sword of Yahweh, even pestilence in the land, and the angel of Yahweh destroying throughout all the borders of Israel. Now therefore consider what answer I shall return to him who sent me. David said to Gad, I am in a great strait: let me fall, I pray, into the hand of Yahweh; for very great are his mercies: and let me not fall into the hand of man. So Yahweh sent a pestilence on Israel; and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men. (1 Chronicles 21:9-14 WEB)and "Next we headed for the land of Bashan, where King Og and his army attacked us at Edrei. But the LORD told me, 'Do not be afraid of him, for I have given you victory over Og and his army, giving you his entire land. Treat him just as you treated King Sihon of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon.' So the LORD our God handed King Og and all his people over to us, and we killed them all. We conquered all sixty of his towns, the entire Argob region in his kingdom of Bashan. These were all fortified cities with high walls and barred gates. We also took many unwalled villages at the same time. We completely destroyed the kingdom of Bashan, just as we had destroyed King Sihon of Heshbon. We destroyed all the people in every town we conquered – men, women, and children alike. But we kept all the livestock for ourselves and took plunder from all the towns." (Deuteronomy 3:1-7 NLT)come pretty damned close.
The New Testament Abrogates the Old Testament anyway, so it's not relevant to Christians.The Old Testament is absolutely valid for Christians. Without the Old Testament, the entire dynastic myth collapses on itself.
Nope, not in the Old Testament either. There is a recounting of events which say what happened, but there is no commandment from God to "urge the believers to battle. If there are among you 20 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 200...... And if there are among you 100 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 1000 of those who have disbelieved...(qur'an 8:65) to this day.Maybe not in those exact words, but Yahweh spoke to Gad, David's seer, saying, Go and speak to David, saying, Thus says Yahweh, I offer you three things: choose you one of them, that I may do it to you. So Gad came to David, and said to him, Thus says Yahweh, Take which you will: either three years of famine; or three months to be consumed before your foes, while the sword of your enemies overtakes you; or else three days the sword of Yahweh, even pestilence in the land, and the angel of Yahweh destroying throughout all the borders of Israel. Now therefore consider what answer I shall return to him who sent me. David said to Gad, I am in a great strait: let me fall, I pray, into the hand of Yahweh; for very great are his mercies: and let me not fall into the hand of man. So Yahweh sent a pestilence on Israel; and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men. (1 Chronicles 21:9-14 WEB)and "Next we headed for the land of Bashan, where King Og and his army attacked us at Edrei. But the LORD told me, 'Do not be afraid of him, for I have given you victory over Og and his army, giving you his entire land. Treat him just as you treated King Sihon of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon.' So the LORD our God handed King Og and all his people over to us, and we killed them all. We conquered all sixty of his towns, the entire Argob region in his kingdom of Bashan. These were all fortified cities with high walls and barred gates. We also took many unwalled villages at the same time. We completely destroyed the kingdom of Bashan, just as we had destroyed King Sihon of Heshbon. We destroyed all the people in every town we conquered – men, women, and children alike. But we kept all the livestock for ourselves and took plunder from all the towns." (Deuteronomy 3:1-7 NLT)come pretty damned close.
The New Testament Abrogates the Old Testament anyway, so it's not relevant to Christians.The Old Testament is absolutely valid for Christians. Without the Old Testament, the entire dynastic myth collapses on itself.
Xtremehkr
Mar 18, 07:09 PM
I can understand why people would think this is a good thing. But at the same time, there are consequences for Apple. Apple sells others peoples songs, if they thought that selling to Apple would mean that their songs could be immediately transfered to P2P outlets they would be reluctant to supply ITMS with any songs.
When it comes to picking ITMS over a different outlet, the amount of available content has a lot to do with it.
I am really curious about who is behind this new group. This software is a poison pill for ITMS, as far as label owners are concerned.
Steve was just in the news for sending an email claiming that a rivals software was easily hacked in order to bypass the restrictions in place to prevent downloaders from freely sharing the music they have purchased.
This smacks of corporate skullduggery at its worst.
On a positive note, it proves that Apple is the company to go after in this area.
On the other hand, Apple needs to step up and protect its interests in this area.
For some reason, 'PlaysForSure' keeps coming to mind.
When it comes to picking ITMS over a different outlet, the amount of available content has a lot to do with it.
I am really curious about who is behind this new group. This software is a poison pill for ITMS, as far as label owners are concerned.
Steve was just in the news for sending an email claiming that a rivals software was easily hacked in order to bypass the restrictions in place to prevent downloaders from freely sharing the music they have purchased.
This smacks of corporate skullduggery at its worst.
On a positive note, it proves that Apple is the company to go after in this area.
On the other hand, Apple needs to step up and protect its interests in this area.
For some reason, 'PlaysForSure' keeps coming to mind.
greenstork
Sep 12, 06:16 PM
>>> Those who think this isn't a Tivo killer don't understand Tivo's plans.
Those that think this is a Tivo Killer don't understand economics, or why people buy Tivos.
Fort this to even be in the BALLPARK, it needs a Hard Dive. Needs to be Hi Def. That ain't happening at a 299.99 price tag. Still, people love the Tivo interface, so to get them, it's gonna have to offer MORE than Tivo- like an optical drive, a couple tuners. No WAY that is in this box and "not discolsed yet" at 299.
Tivo Killer. That's a killer joke, or Appleboy dreaming. Not close to reality.
Bingo, and the only people claiming that it's a Tivo killer have probably never owned a Tivo.
Those that think this is a Tivo Killer don't understand economics, or why people buy Tivos.
Fort this to even be in the BALLPARK, it needs a Hard Dive. Needs to be Hi Def. That ain't happening at a 299.99 price tag. Still, people love the Tivo interface, so to get them, it's gonna have to offer MORE than Tivo- like an optical drive, a couple tuners. No WAY that is in this box and "not discolsed yet" at 299.
Tivo Killer. That's a killer joke, or Appleboy dreaming. Not close to reality.
Bingo, and the only people claiming that it's a Tivo killer have probably never owned a Tivo.
r1ch4rd
Apr 22, 10:56 PM
Pray to Ba'al lately?
Yeah, I didn't get any good drops though...
http://diablo2.diablowiki.net/Baal
Yeah, I didn't get any good drops though...
http://diablo2.diablowiki.net/Baal
Eidorian
Jul 14, 02:15 PM
Can anyone tell me the purpose of dual drive slots nowadays? I can see the use for them (and had computers with) when they were limited to one function, i.e. DVD-ROM for one and a CD-RW for the other but now that everything can happen in one drive with speed not being an issue, is it really nececcary to have two?Burn two DVD's at once and DVD copying.
peharri
Sep 20, 01:51 PM
I think iTV is a waste of time and money for apple. In essence, the mac mini can do ALL OF THAT, plus more, minus the ability to go out via HDMI. If apple just upgraded FRONT ROW to the quality of the iTV user interface, you have an iTV right there on the mac mini! Just add some more ports, including HDMI, cable in for DVR recording, a massive hard drive, and you have a MAC MEDIA CENTER PC! What about connecting to other machines to share content? YOU CAN ALREADY DO THAT!!! In iTunes you say "share my media on my network" and any computer with iTunes can read that information! Come on apple...this iTV thing is a WASTE. It's a dumb down mac mini...apple will make way more money selling mac mini's with TIGER/LEOPARD on it, so not only would you get a DVR, STREAMING MOVIES, DOWNLOADABLE MOVIES TO PLAY ON YOUR TV, but you get WEB TV!!! Or edit a MOVIE ON YOUR BIG ASS TV! Sorry for the rant...I just don't know why apple doesn't merge both technologies together in one system to compete with media center pc, and convert MORE mac sales.
The iTV is going to be $300. You're talking about ordinary users paying well over $600 for a set top box. Requiring that they get a Mac mini raises the barrier to entry but doesn't provide any significant advantage to the person who just wants iTunes on their TV.
The iTV is going to be $300. You're talking about ordinary users paying well over $600 for a set top box. Requiring that they get a Mac mini raises the barrier to entry but doesn't provide any significant advantage to the person who just wants iTunes on their TV.