kdarling
Jun 1, 12:36 AM
Ok just to reference your statement about data using seperate channels and what not I guess you are not privy to the technology used in cell towers, congestion is caused as a cell tower can only handle so many requests, DATA or VOICE.....
Fortunately, it doesn't work that way.
A common mistake is in thinking that an IP based backhaul means voice calls don't get dedicated resources. However, carriers use TDM and/or pseudo-wire circuits to make sure that voice calls get all the QoS they need.
Data has to share the remaining bandwidth and is what is subject to congestion.
So fyi Data requests can congest and cause problems with voice even on the Un Touched Super Squeeky Clean power known as Verizon's network.....
No. See above. Data loads alone should not cause problems with voice due to limited backhaul on either Verizon or AT&T. Data especially cannot cause a voice problem on Verizon because it's transmitted on separate channels.
Data can (and does) cause dropped voice calls on AT&T because GSM 3G shares the same channel for data and voice (thus allowing their simultaneous use). Data transmissions can affect voice calls, and vice versa. This is because more 3G voice or data users cause a cell's effective radius to shrink, and marginal users will often get dropped. So a new data user can drop voice users on AT&T.
Another problem with GSM 3G is that if you're on a voice call and then use data simultaneously, the phone+network has to drop the voice connection and reconnect instantly as a combined data call, which can fail. You might not even know the phone is trying to do this in the background for push email or notifications data. All you know is that your voice call dropped. (Which is why some people stick to EDGE, which does not support simultaneous comms.)
I get dropped calls constantly. I'd say it's approaching 50% of the time. I am not even in a rural area at all. My phone will say 3-4 bars and then when I go to make a call, it drops down to 0-1 bars. I just turned in on, just now and it showed 4 bars, and then it dropped to 2 bars immediately. I think their software is trying to be optimistic or something. It's like magic!
GSM uses a form of CDMA called WCDMA for 3G.
(W)CDMA works by having every phone talking at once, just like picking out a voice in a crowd in a noisy room. The more phones talking to a cell, the louder everyone has to talk to be heard. The overall signal level doesn't matter, but only the usable ratio of your own signal levels to the noise floor.
If a phone displayed this ratio, it would fluctuate wildly as users come and go. So idle phones usually display the steady power level of a transmitted pilot channel from the tower instead. Basically, the closer you are, the higher the level, which a user can understand.
Once you connect, the phone can actually determine the connection quality because then it knows its communication error rate. That's why the bars will fluctuate after connection.
Your phone could show only one bar of pilot signal, but still get a great connection if you're the only one using that cell. Or you could have full bars of pilot signal, but a terrible connection if you're sharing the cell with too many others.
So bars are basically meaningless until connected, and even then only show the quality incoming to the phone, not how well you transmit to the tower.
Fortunately, it doesn't work that way.
A common mistake is in thinking that an IP based backhaul means voice calls don't get dedicated resources. However, carriers use TDM and/or pseudo-wire circuits to make sure that voice calls get all the QoS they need.
Data has to share the remaining bandwidth and is what is subject to congestion.
So fyi Data requests can congest and cause problems with voice even on the Un Touched Super Squeeky Clean power known as Verizon's network.....
No. See above. Data loads alone should not cause problems with voice due to limited backhaul on either Verizon or AT&T. Data especially cannot cause a voice problem on Verizon because it's transmitted on separate channels.
Data can (and does) cause dropped voice calls on AT&T because GSM 3G shares the same channel for data and voice (thus allowing their simultaneous use). Data transmissions can affect voice calls, and vice versa. This is because more 3G voice or data users cause a cell's effective radius to shrink, and marginal users will often get dropped. So a new data user can drop voice users on AT&T.
Another problem with GSM 3G is that if you're on a voice call and then use data simultaneously, the phone+network has to drop the voice connection and reconnect instantly as a combined data call, which can fail. You might not even know the phone is trying to do this in the background for push email or notifications data. All you know is that your voice call dropped. (Which is why some people stick to EDGE, which does not support simultaneous comms.)
I get dropped calls constantly. I'd say it's approaching 50% of the time. I am not even in a rural area at all. My phone will say 3-4 bars and then when I go to make a call, it drops down to 0-1 bars. I just turned in on, just now and it showed 4 bars, and then it dropped to 2 bars immediately. I think their software is trying to be optimistic or something. It's like magic!
GSM uses a form of CDMA called WCDMA for 3G.
(W)CDMA works by having every phone talking at once, just like picking out a voice in a crowd in a noisy room. The more phones talking to a cell, the louder everyone has to talk to be heard. The overall signal level doesn't matter, but only the usable ratio of your own signal levels to the noise floor.
If a phone displayed this ratio, it would fluctuate wildly as users come and go. So idle phones usually display the steady power level of a transmitted pilot channel from the tower instead. Basically, the closer you are, the higher the level, which a user can understand.
Once you connect, the phone can actually determine the connection quality because then it knows its communication error rate. That's why the bars will fluctuate after connection.
Your phone could show only one bar of pilot signal, but still get a great connection if you're the only one using that cell. Or you could have full bars of pilot signal, but a terrible connection if you're sharing the cell with too many others.
So bars are basically meaningless until connected, and even then only show the quality incoming to the phone, not how well you transmit to the tower.
myamid
Sep 12, 07:01 PM
You guys all miss the point. The Desktop is the Media Center! All recording gets done there. It is then served to ANY TV, iPOD, Stereo in the house.
Same way Windows Media and xBox 360 do it, only with a High Def slant.
Actually I don't think many people are missing the point... Actually most of those who are so thrilled are missing the point that this is nothing new... It won't change anything or add anything that couldn't be done 2-3 years ago. IT IS a good idea, but IT IS NOT a new idea. It's an old idea recycled by Apple because it fits in their strategy - and plainly because Media Center PC generally suck at what they do...
But to do what you kinda magically assume you'll be able to do, you'll have to buy a seperate tuner... And if you ask me, Apple is likely NOT to allow eyeTV content from being streamed (since it would inherently hurt their TV SHOW store...)
Same way Windows Media and xBox 360 do it, only with a High Def slant.
Actually I don't think many people are missing the point... Actually most of those who are so thrilled are missing the point that this is nothing new... It won't change anything or add anything that couldn't be done 2-3 years ago. IT IS a good idea, but IT IS NOT a new idea. It's an old idea recycled by Apple because it fits in their strategy - and plainly because Media Center PC generally suck at what they do...
But to do what you kinda magically assume you'll be able to do, you'll have to buy a seperate tuner... And if you ask me, Apple is likely NOT to allow eyeTV content from being streamed (since it would inherently hurt their TV SHOW store...)
~Shard~
Oct 31, 08:42 PM
No kidding. :rolleyes: All I want is to compress video faster than I can with the 4-core Mac Pro - that's IT. So if it won't do that, I'll just have a cow and go to bed for six months. :eek:
Haha, sounds like a good plan! ;) :)
Haha, sounds like a good plan! ;) :)
mscriv
Apr 12, 09:52 AM
The biggest hassle was keyboard differences for me. Some keys I use quite often like "home" and "end" are missing.
My Mac keyboard has "home" and "end" keys. They function differently in basic use from Windows though. If you are talking about being able to jump to the beginning and end of a line of text (like in Word) then the Mac shortcut is command + Left or Right Arrow depending on whether you are going to the beginning or end of the line.
My Mac keyboard has "home" and "end" keys. They function differently in basic use from Windows though. If you are talking about being able to jump to the beginning and end of a line of text (like in Word) then the Mac shortcut is command + Left or Right Arrow depending on whether you are going to the beginning or end of the line.
digitalbiker
Sep 24, 05:38 PM
It most certainly is not of some souped up Airport Extreme. That was what was widely rumoured before the Showtime presentation, and it turned out to be completely false. Whatever the debate of the precise capabilities of the iTV may be, the device demo'd couldn't be further from being an Airport Extreme if it tried.
OK, believe what you want but you must be watching a different ShowTime presentation and reading different reviews than I have been reading. Your discription is just not factual.
Everything I have seen describes the iTV as a souped up airport extreme that uses FrontRow to remote control an iTunes streaming device (i.e. computer) on the network. The product fits nicely in the model SJ has of a computer centric universe or digital hub. The use of the hard drive is most likely for cache to buffer the stream on an unstable 80211 connection.
OK, believe what you want but you must be watching a different ShowTime presentation and reading different reviews than I have been reading. Your discription is just not factual.
Everything I have seen describes the iTV as a souped up airport extreme that uses FrontRow to remote control an iTunes streaming device (i.e. computer) on the network. The product fits nicely in the model SJ has of a computer centric universe or digital hub. The use of the hard drive is most likely for cache to buffer the stream on an unstable 80211 connection.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 14, 07:35 PM
And as long as humans are in charge of designing, building, and maintaining them, there will be errors.
rdowns
Apr 24, 12:13 PM
It's about power and control- nothing more.
And Fear.
and money.
And Fear.
and money.
gugy
Sep 12, 06:57 PM
Have fun sitting down to your computer to record shows. I get the vision, I reallly do, and I wanted Apple to pull it off better than anyone. But having to record HD content from one piece of hardware, convert it on my computer, load it onto iTunes and stream it to another piece of hardware (iTV) isn't exactly user friendly. The fact of the matter is, Apple doesn't really want you recording TV. So, while not impossible, you do have to jump through a few hoops. Having used TiVo for years, I would never convert to such a complicated system. If Apple had a DVR, they'd also have my business.
You don't understand. I am not planning to spend my entire day recording programming. Eventually there is a certain show or event that yes, I want to keep it and save for future viewing. This is where the elgato will come in.
I have my dishnetwork dvr and I love it and I am not planning to get rid of it anytime soon.
I think ITV is a great idea that has a lot of room to grow.
Yes, I rather buy content from Apple and have it stream directly to my ITV without having to go through the hassle of using elgato. But at this moment I think is very expensive to get a 640x480 movie. I rather wait for eventually a HDTV content on itunes. It might take 3 to 4 years for that to happen. Meanwhile I am enjoying my elgato and ITV for things that I want to keep and using my dishnetwork dvr for things i don't want to keep.
You don't understand. I am not planning to spend my entire day recording programming. Eventually there is a certain show or event that yes, I want to keep it and save for future viewing. This is where the elgato will come in.
I have my dishnetwork dvr and I love it and I am not planning to get rid of it anytime soon.
I think ITV is a great idea that has a lot of room to grow.
Yes, I rather buy content from Apple and have it stream directly to my ITV without having to go through the hassle of using elgato. But at this moment I think is very expensive to get a 640x480 movie. I rather wait for eventually a HDTV content on itunes. It might take 3 to 4 years for that to happen. Meanwhile I am enjoying my elgato and ITV for things that I want to keep and using my dishnetwork dvr for things i don't want to keep.
ddtlm
Oct 7, 11:14 AM
I'd be more impressed with these "tests" if the pro-Mac cowards had used a top-of-the-line Athlon system (1.8ghz is available for duals, 2.13ghz is pretty much available for singles) or a top-of-the-line P4 (2.0ghz? haha!). The 2.0ghz P4 runs on the old 400mhz FSB whereas there is a 533mhz FSB P4 clocking at 2.8ghz available. They also make no mention of memory type used on any platform. For the P4, PC1066 RDRAM is tops, for the Athlon the new nForce2 with 2 channels of 333mhz DDR is tops (although I will admit that chipset still has a one-month ETA). OK, so maybe use the VIA KT400 for the Athlon, it's pretty good.
And what's his quote about a dual Xeon 2200 probably being top dog? Other than the fact you can get Xeons at 2.8ghz as well...
Anyway I think these tests are crap. But they will suffice so that "Macs are fastest!" freakos can keep them in mind and make vauge statements about how Macs and PCs are about the same speed in "tests". (Those people annoy me.)
And what's his quote about a dual Xeon 2200 probably being top dog? Other than the fact you can get Xeons at 2.8ghz as well...
Anyway I think these tests are crap. But they will suffice so that "Macs are fastest!" freakos can keep them in mind and make vauge statements about how Macs and PCs are about the same speed in "tests". (Those people annoy me.)
GGJstudios
May 2, 03:41 PM
What if next time it's a malicious piece of code ? Why did it auto-execute, under what conditions and could these conditions be used to execute something other than an installer ?
It can't achieve privilege escalation without the user entering their admin password. That means it can't damage your Mac OS X installation.
ie, not viruses. ClamAV's original intent was Linux e-mail servers and while it may have morphed into more, it's existence is not the proof of Mac viruses.
I only mentioned that because some are under the mistaken impression that ClamXav only detects Windows malware.
It can't achieve privilege escalation without the user entering their admin password. That means it can't damage your Mac OS X installation.
ie, not viruses. ClamAV's original intent was Linux e-mail servers and while it may have morphed into more, it's existence is not the proof of Mac viruses.
I only mentioned that because some are under the mistaken impression that ClamXav only detects Windows malware.
jragosta
Mar 18, 04:43 PM
Obviously, Apple will freak (what else is new...), but all this does is provide a shortcut around the burn-to-CD-and-rerip shortcut that's built into iTunes. You still need to buy the music. So, at best, this makes it easier to share music, but it doesn't provide a new capability.
I think it's a great convenience. I'm just saying that the inevitable wrath-of-God response from Apple is somewhat unwarranted.
I disagree. What he's doing is illegal and unethical.
If you burn a CD and rip it back, you're losing quality. The owners of the music (mostly RIAA, but anyone who licenses it to Apple) apparently decided that they can live with that. They did NOT agree to what this guy is doing.
It's theft, pure and simple.
More like the wrath-of-Jobs! :rolleyes:
Anyway, I've never been one to agree with the Windows people that argue the security-by-obscurity for why Mac OS X is not hacked to bits like Windows, but it would seem that this adds aome serious fire to their arguement. Here in music where Apple is the most popular and widely used, they are getting hacked (semi-successfully) more often than their WMA counterpart.
There's a big difference. This is not a system security flaw. It's simply a matter of someone reverse engineering a file format. AFAIK, there isn't a single file format which has not been reverse engineered. That's actually a trivial task.
iTMS just used web service interfaces and XML over HTTP... It will be interesting to see just how they could stop an app from accessing.
What is more likely is that the iTMS servers would add in the DRM and buyer metadata before it gets downloaded. Its actually a little shocking that it wasn't designed to do that in the first place!
Yes, they could do that.
They will also easily obtain a court injunction to stop this. What he's doing is illegal from two perspectives. First, it's a violation of the iTMS terms of service (which allows only iTunes access). Second, it's a violation of DCMA.
Personally I think this is great! Any sort of DRM sucks, even if it is rather "liberal". That's like giving all your customers in your shop a pair of handcuffs to prevent theft, and saying "but these cuffs are really comfortable".
I happen to disagree - but that's because my company depends on the ability to protect our intellectual property in order to stay in business.
The music owners have the right to do whatever they want with the music. You can legally (and morally) do what they request or live without their music.
Your position is the same as a person who steals a BMW because he doesn't like the purchase terms.
This is great news - by removing the DRM I can play my music on any device I like. It is my music after all. .
No, it's not your music. The music belongs to whoever the artist sold it to (usually a member of the RIAA). They sell you a license to use the music under a given set of terms. If you violate the terms that you paid for, you're stealing.
And if the industry would sell cheaper music without DRM then P2P wouldn't be as big of a problem.
If BMW would sell cheaper 5 series cars, no one would steal them.
The music industry owns the music - and they're free to price it however they want. If you think the price is too high, your only legal and moral response is to not buy it. Not liking the price is not justification for theft.
I think it's a great convenience. I'm just saying that the inevitable wrath-of-God response from Apple is somewhat unwarranted.
I disagree. What he's doing is illegal and unethical.
If you burn a CD and rip it back, you're losing quality. The owners of the music (mostly RIAA, but anyone who licenses it to Apple) apparently decided that they can live with that. They did NOT agree to what this guy is doing.
It's theft, pure and simple.
More like the wrath-of-Jobs! :rolleyes:
Anyway, I've never been one to agree with the Windows people that argue the security-by-obscurity for why Mac OS X is not hacked to bits like Windows, but it would seem that this adds aome serious fire to their arguement. Here in music where Apple is the most popular and widely used, they are getting hacked (semi-successfully) more often than their WMA counterpart.
There's a big difference. This is not a system security flaw. It's simply a matter of someone reverse engineering a file format. AFAIK, there isn't a single file format which has not been reverse engineered. That's actually a trivial task.
iTMS just used web service interfaces and XML over HTTP... It will be interesting to see just how they could stop an app from accessing.
What is more likely is that the iTMS servers would add in the DRM and buyer metadata before it gets downloaded. Its actually a little shocking that it wasn't designed to do that in the first place!
Yes, they could do that.
They will also easily obtain a court injunction to stop this. What he's doing is illegal from two perspectives. First, it's a violation of the iTMS terms of service (which allows only iTunes access). Second, it's a violation of DCMA.
Personally I think this is great! Any sort of DRM sucks, even if it is rather "liberal". That's like giving all your customers in your shop a pair of handcuffs to prevent theft, and saying "but these cuffs are really comfortable".
I happen to disagree - but that's because my company depends on the ability to protect our intellectual property in order to stay in business.
The music owners have the right to do whatever they want with the music. You can legally (and morally) do what they request or live without their music.
Your position is the same as a person who steals a BMW because he doesn't like the purchase terms.
This is great news - by removing the DRM I can play my music on any device I like. It is my music after all. .
No, it's not your music. The music belongs to whoever the artist sold it to (usually a member of the RIAA). They sell you a license to use the music under a given set of terms. If you violate the terms that you paid for, you're stealing.
And if the industry would sell cheaper music without DRM then P2P wouldn't be as big of a problem.
If BMW would sell cheaper 5 series cars, no one would steal them.
The music industry owns the music - and they're free to price it however they want. If you think the price is too high, your only legal and moral response is to not buy it. Not liking the price is not justification for theft.
arkitect
Mar 27, 04:55 PM
I haven't cited any self-published book about any topic.
No. I didn't mean that you had recommended any book that you had self-published�
No. I didn't mean that you had recommended any book that you had self-published�
skunk
Mar 14, 04:22 PM
I believe that massive solar energy farms in the Sahara and other deserts, servicing whole landmasses, like the EU proposal, is the way to go. If the price goes up to pay for the infrastructure, the rationing effect can only be a good thing. Safety, certainly, is hardly an issue.
Popeye206
Apr 15, 09:20 AM
This is good to see. Seems as though teens are under many social pressures that didn't seem to exist when I was a teen (in the 70's). Knowing there is a light at the end of the tunnel may help a few from making the ultimate bad choice.
Good on Apple, all the other companies, and the employees for participating in this type of project.
Good on Apple, all the other companies, and the employees for participating in this type of project.
SandynJosh
May 2, 04:06 PM
You're not quite understanding what I'm saying or the situation here. Safari auto-downloads a zip file, runs it through Archive Utility which extracts something and then runs it.
It happens to be an installer this time. What if next time it's a malicious piece of code ? Why did it auto-execute, under what conditions and could these conditions be used to execute something other than an installer ?
Think a bit beyond the current situation. The malware authors do.
I think I understands what you are saying. However, for the sake of clarity, let me answer your question relating to "why it auto-executed." The Safari protection level needs to be set to "Allow 'Safe' files to be opened."
This allows the Archive Utility to open the .zip file which contains the installation file to begin execution. Had the user not allowed this action, the file would never had made it to the user's computer without the user deliberate allowing it to be downloaded.
Once the installer is running, it still needs the user to enter and password and authorize the installer to install the software. If the user doesn't have the computer's administrator password, then once more the malware is blocked.
To address your other question, as to what conditions could malicious code get into OSX:
1. First, the file would need to be considered "safe" to be allowed to auto-download and auto-open, AND the browser would need to be set to allow this.
2. Then, like the case with the installer above, it would need to seek the user's permission to be installed. This again, required the complicity of the user, who would still need the administrator's password.
It happens to be an installer this time. What if next time it's a malicious piece of code ? Why did it auto-execute, under what conditions and could these conditions be used to execute something other than an installer ?
Think a bit beyond the current situation. The malware authors do.
I think I understands what you are saying. However, for the sake of clarity, let me answer your question relating to "why it auto-executed." The Safari protection level needs to be set to "Allow 'Safe' files to be opened."
This allows the Archive Utility to open the .zip file which contains the installation file to begin execution. Had the user not allowed this action, the file would never had made it to the user's computer without the user deliberate allowing it to be downloaded.
Once the installer is running, it still needs the user to enter and password and authorize the installer to install the software. If the user doesn't have the computer's administrator password, then once more the malware is blocked.
To address your other question, as to what conditions could malicious code get into OSX:
1. First, the file would need to be considered "safe" to be allowed to auto-download and auto-open, AND the browser would need to be set to allow this.
2. Then, like the case with the installer above, it would need to seek the user's permission to be installed. This again, required the complicity of the user, who would still need the administrator's password.
nefan65
May 2, 09:37 AM
Bigger, most Windows PC have anti-virus, can you say the same for Macs?
It's Malware, not a virus. Big difference. Also, it's only related to Safari, WITH Open Safe files after downloading enabled. Otherwise, it requests that you open it, and enter a username/pass for the Admin account...
It's only "Bigger" if you're gullible enough to download it, and install it without checking first...
It's Malware, not a virus. Big difference. Also, it's only related to Safari, WITH Open Safe files after downloading enabled. Otherwise, it requests that you open it, and enter a username/pass for the Admin account...
It's only "Bigger" if you're gullible enough to download it, and install it without checking first...
arkitect
Apr 15, 12:01 PM
ALL Catholics are called to chastity. 100% of them. It's too bad you don't know what the word means.
Really? ;)
So I can have same-sex sex and it is just as OK (in the eyes of the Catholic Church) for me and my partner as it is for a straight couple to have sex?
Kewl.
I don't think so… But nice try anyway.
Ah, semantics.
Of course most people (and I am sure good Catholics) equate it with sexual abstinance.
Really? ;)
So I can have same-sex sex and it is just as OK (in the eyes of the Catholic Church) for me and my partner as it is for a straight couple to have sex?
Kewl.
I don't think so… But nice try anyway.
Ah, semantics.
Of course most people (and I am sure good Catholics) equate it with sexual abstinance.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:38 AM
I see lots of opinion here, but not a lot of facts. While there are some retro packs, where is a collection of 25 games � less than a year old � for the Nintendo DS?
Here's more like reality...
Bookworm... $20 on the Nintendo DS, but 99�-$2.99 on iPhone.
Before you point out the mote in our eyes, remove the plank from your own. What is the claim that Nintendo will go the way of Blockbuster other than opinion?
The plethora of mini-game based Wii games is a fact. The fact that those specific titles have not been ported to iOS (although I suspect that if I looked I'd find facsimiles of all languishing as failed $.99 games) does not invalidate the point.
Here's more like reality...
Bookworm... $20 on the Nintendo DS, but 99�-$2.99 on iPhone.
Before you point out the mote in our eyes, remove the plank from your own. What is the claim that Nintendo will go the way of Blockbuster other than opinion?
The plethora of mini-game based Wii games is a fact. The fact that those specific titles have not been ported to iOS (although I suspect that if I looked I'd find facsimiles of all languishing as failed $.99 games) does not invalidate the point.
*LTD*
Apr 28, 08:12 AM
Right, but how is that not a fad? By definition, it doesn't matter how said fad ends, it simply means that it's overall existence is temporary.
I agree that it it was replaced by newer technology that does more, but it still was a fad in the end.
You don't get it.
I agree that it it was replaced by newer technology that does more, but it still was a fad in the end.
You don't get it.
gorgeousninja
Apr 21, 06:58 AM
But just like Windows, it's practically impossible to have any problems unless you do something stupid.
I'm guessing that you haven't used any of the earlier versions of Windows much... cos everyone else knows about the random glitches, screen freeze, BSOD and crashes .... unless you count turning it on as stupid ... Well, actually that I can agree with. :)
I'm guessing that you haven't used any of the earlier versions of Windows much... cos everyone else knows about the random glitches, screen freeze, BSOD and crashes .... unless you count turning it on as stupid ... Well, actually that I can agree with. :)
superleccy
Sep 20, 08:48 AM
I see your point but maybe you're not seeing the big picture-- the future as Apple, perhaps, sees it. (And you are paying for that "Lost" episode whether you watch it or not, aren't you?)
A few minutes ago, I was thinking, Gee...if Apple got enough content on iTunes, a guy could just buy all the stuff he wanted to see and to hell with the rest. I see this as replacing cable TV in the not-too-distant future.
This may the furture as Apple sees it, but I really hope not. If it were, it wouldn't work in the UK. No way.
No, I am not already paying for the that episode of Lost. In the UK, it is broadcast on C4 & E4, which are commercial, free (non-subscription) and stations. And jolly good they are too. The compulsary TV licence fee we pay all goes to the BBC (bless them). I don't have a cable or a satellite dish. Don't want them, don't need them, never will do.
The day that Apple replaces my need for EyeTV will be the day that every single TV programme is available on iTunes (from Lost to Coronation Street, from Live Snooker to Local News) for free. And not even Apple can make that happen. I don't think they are idealistic or stupid enough.
SL
A few minutes ago, I was thinking, Gee...if Apple got enough content on iTunes, a guy could just buy all the stuff he wanted to see and to hell with the rest. I see this as replacing cable TV in the not-too-distant future.
This may the furture as Apple sees it, but I really hope not. If it were, it wouldn't work in the UK. No way.
No, I am not already paying for the that episode of Lost. In the UK, it is broadcast on C4 & E4, which are commercial, free (non-subscription) and stations. And jolly good they are too. The compulsary TV licence fee we pay all goes to the BBC (bless them). I don't have a cable or a satellite dish. Don't want them, don't need them, never will do.
The day that Apple replaces my need for EyeTV will be the day that every single TV programme is available on iTunes (from Lost to Coronation Street, from Live Snooker to Local News) for free. And not even Apple can make that happen. I don't think they are idealistic or stupid enough.
SL
LimeiBook86
Apr 15, 09:14 AM
Pixar did a similar video like this, it was the first one I've seen. Glad to see Apple doing one as well. :) Great idea, very nice! :D
CalBoy
Apr 22, 10:41 PM
As I said in my first post, most atheists that I speak to don't put this much thought and care into their atheism. They just take it for granted that it won't be challenged.
I haven't seen that in my experience. Most atheists put a great deal of deliberative thought into their position. "Casual" atheists are more commonly, in my experience, agnostics with a poor vocabulary. In fact, the very idea of holding a position without substantiation is an anathema to what atheists hold above all else: the triumph of reason over "intuition."
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
Yes, you did. You lumped up three distinct theories about three different aspects of cosmic, geological, and biological history, all because they were an affront to your beliefs (or to your incredulity, whichever fits better).
"Exploding" only applies to the Big Bang Theory (and barely at that). Planetary formation and cell formation are radically different and quite complex, as is the Big Bang Theory. Trying to lump them all into one "explosion" from which your current reality directly came to be only shows your scientific illiteracy, not an inherent weakness in any one of these well-tested ideas.
I haven't seen that in my experience. Most atheists put a great deal of deliberative thought into their position. "Casual" atheists are more commonly, in my experience, agnostics with a poor vocabulary. In fact, the very idea of holding a position without substantiation is an anathema to what atheists hold above all else: the triumph of reason over "intuition."
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
Yes, you did. You lumped up three distinct theories about three different aspects of cosmic, geological, and biological history, all because they were an affront to your beliefs (or to your incredulity, whichever fits better).
"Exploding" only applies to the Big Bang Theory (and barely at that). Planetary formation and cell formation are radically different and quite complex, as is the Big Bang Theory. Trying to lump them all into one "explosion" from which your current reality directly came to be only shows your scientific illiteracy, not an inherent weakness in any one of these well-tested ideas.
macenforcer
Aug 29, 02:12 PM
The earth is going to end up a burnt chunk of concrete unless all construction and production of materials stops today. Its is never going to happen so just start looking for other planets.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий