newuser2310
Apr 26, 05:59 PM
Ive never read so much ignorance and thinly veiled racism in one thread. Some of you nobs should be ashamed of yourselves.
Of course people will turn to crime in poor areas with little or no positive opportunities.
Genetic? Dont make me sick.
Of course people will turn to crime in poor areas with little or no positive opportunities.
Genetic? Dont make me sick.
skunk
Mar 29, 08:35 AM
I don't want to be the one to tell you, but Americans hold no allegiance to NATO or to the United Nations. In addition, no treaties or otherwise passed by these two organizations have any legal effect on our sovereign nation.May I quote your precious Constitution?
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Perhaps you missed that bit.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Perhaps you missed that bit.
freeny
Sep 22, 01:03 PM
Walmart wont do squat! They are just bitc*ing in fear they are gonna lose $$$. What are they gonna do? Stop selling movies from certain distributers and lose even more $$$ ????:rolleyes:
alent1234
Apr 12, 03:13 PM
They make cars in the US, and domestic cars are typically less expensive than foreign ones. This argument really doesn't fly.
Stop making excuses for US companies that build their products elsewhere. We CAN manufacture things in this country; we used to do it a lot more and the products were affordable.
My Apple IIe says "Made in the USA" on the bottom. It's sad that we never see that on computers anymore.
we also make airplanes and other things that cost a lot. partly because shipping cars across the ocean is expensive and import duties
it's the cheap things that can't be produced in america anymore for a price people are willing to pay
Stop making excuses for US companies that build their products elsewhere. We CAN manufacture things in this country; we used to do it a lot more and the products were affordable.
My Apple IIe says "Made in the USA" on the bottom. It's sad that we never see that on computers anymore.
we also make airplanes and other things that cost a lot. partly because shipping cars across the ocean is expensive and import duties
it's the cheap things that can't be produced in america anymore for a price people are willing to pay
bluetorch18
Aug 2, 04:41 PM
So what happens when the owner of the MacBook closes the computer?
That'll show the bastards...:mad:
That'll show the bastards...:mad:
mscriv
Apr 7, 11:53 AM
The Bible says many good things and many bad things. I was highlighting some of the bad things to show how people do pick and choose. Consider Deuteronomy 13-
6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ...
9 ... thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God.
This is pretty clear, and no amount of fitting in with the rest of the Bible or whatever is going to help. Thankfully, people ignore this today. In other words, people apply a moral standard when reading the Bible. The Bible doesn't lead to morality.
*bold emphasis mine
I'm sorry friend, but you aren't understanding the full context of what you are reading. The old testament, in this case Deuteronomy, does not stand alone, but is correctly interpreted in light of the new testament and the fulfillment of the law that Christ accomplished through the incarnation and his death.
God gave the law in the old testament to serve a specific purpose at a specific time to a specific people. From a theological stand point it's purpose was to show that no amount of work or good behavior can bring one to God. The law serves to highlight our separation from God in that none of us can measure up. The wages of sin are death and thus under the law death was the punishment. Under the new covenant Christ's death has paid the price of sin and we no longer need to live under the law.
So you see, you are guilty of doing what it is you are saying that others are doing. You are picking/choosing a verse out of the old testament and presenting it as if it was a universal command to all believers for all time.
It's like when you tell a child to play in the front yard but not to cross the street. You are giving them a specific command for a specific time with a specific purpose in mind (their safety). It would be silly to say that your intention was for that child to never cross a street in their life. They are forever forbidden from leaving the front yard because at one point you told them not to cross the street.
I'm not trying to pick on you or attack you personally, I'm simply trying to help you better understand. People often make the error of thinking the Bible is written like an instruction manual or a recipie book. It's not that simple. You must read it in context and it's context is the entirety of the 66 books contained within it. Additionally, the books are written in different genres of literature and thus various literary tools are used to correctly interpret them.
For you to quote Deuteronomy as evidence that the Bible "literally" tells believers today they should stone people is incorrect. It's also silly to say "thanfully people today ignore this". This statement highlights your misunderstanding of what you are quoting. Believers don't need to ignore a law/command that was never intended for them. Do you ignore horse and buggy traffic laws that were written centuries ago? You don't need to, those laws were not written for you, but for a specific people at a specific time.
Much of the old testament is narrative historical literature and it allows believers to understand how God has worked throughout history to reveal himself. To take those narratives and claim they are commands for today's people is both silly and a misrepresentation of what the Bible actually says.
@mscriv
I think that my objection to a book like this for atheists is that there is no reason to believe that the author of the book's morals or opinions are anymore important or better than anyone else's.
I'm disagreeing with barkomatic (and do understand what he is saying). I'm saying religion does not provide the basis for modern morality. I'm saying a structured moral code isn't necessary- it is already there as it is in part innate and in part social.
I understand these difference of opinion and thank you for your clarification.
6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ...
9 ... thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God.
This is pretty clear, and no amount of fitting in with the rest of the Bible or whatever is going to help. Thankfully, people ignore this today. In other words, people apply a moral standard when reading the Bible. The Bible doesn't lead to morality.
*bold emphasis mine
I'm sorry friend, but you aren't understanding the full context of what you are reading. The old testament, in this case Deuteronomy, does not stand alone, but is correctly interpreted in light of the new testament and the fulfillment of the law that Christ accomplished through the incarnation and his death.
God gave the law in the old testament to serve a specific purpose at a specific time to a specific people. From a theological stand point it's purpose was to show that no amount of work or good behavior can bring one to God. The law serves to highlight our separation from God in that none of us can measure up. The wages of sin are death and thus under the law death was the punishment. Under the new covenant Christ's death has paid the price of sin and we no longer need to live under the law.
So you see, you are guilty of doing what it is you are saying that others are doing. You are picking/choosing a verse out of the old testament and presenting it as if it was a universal command to all believers for all time.
It's like when you tell a child to play in the front yard but not to cross the street. You are giving them a specific command for a specific time with a specific purpose in mind (their safety). It would be silly to say that your intention was for that child to never cross a street in their life. They are forever forbidden from leaving the front yard because at one point you told them not to cross the street.
I'm not trying to pick on you or attack you personally, I'm simply trying to help you better understand. People often make the error of thinking the Bible is written like an instruction manual or a recipie book. It's not that simple. You must read it in context and it's context is the entirety of the 66 books contained within it. Additionally, the books are written in different genres of literature and thus various literary tools are used to correctly interpret them.
For you to quote Deuteronomy as evidence that the Bible "literally" tells believers today they should stone people is incorrect. It's also silly to say "thanfully people today ignore this". This statement highlights your misunderstanding of what you are quoting. Believers don't need to ignore a law/command that was never intended for them. Do you ignore horse and buggy traffic laws that were written centuries ago? You don't need to, those laws were not written for you, but for a specific people at a specific time.
Much of the old testament is narrative historical literature and it allows believers to understand how God has worked throughout history to reveal himself. To take those narratives and claim they are commands for today's people is both silly and a misrepresentation of what the Bible actually says.
@mscriv
I think that my objection to a book like this for atheists is that there is no reason to believe that the author of the book's morals or opinions are anymore important or better than anyone else's.
I'm disagreeing with barkomatic (and do understand what he is saying). I'm saying religion does not provide the basis for modern morality. I'm saying a structured moral code isn't necessary- it is already there as it is in part innate and in part social.
I understand these difference of opinion and thank you for your clarification.
Edge100
Jan 15, 09:58 AM
I was waiting for the 'we've licensed the Beatles' announcement after he'd played some of their songs as well. Though thinking about it, that would be done at a separate announcement, when Apple need some easy pr.
I agree; it was a teaser. I think everyone was expecting the announcement, and playing The Beatles during the keynote got everyone excited.
But this clearly deserves its own event. Also, 2007 is the 20th anniversary of the CD releases, and the 40th anniversary of the release of Sgt. Pepper. These are both big milestones, and both Apples will want to capitalize on it. I don't think it was coincidence that they played a track from Sgt. Pepper (Lovely Rita was it? I haven't seen the keynote). Look for an announcement in the near future, followed by a release (of at least Sgt. Pepper) on June 1, which is the 40th anniversary date.
In addition to downloads, I'd also really like to see upgraded CD (or even surround) releases of the UK albums.
I agree; it was a teaser. I think everyone was expecting the announcement, and playing The Beatles during the keynote got everyone excited.
But this clearly deserves its own event. Also, 2007 is the 20th anniversary of the CD releases, and the 40th anniversary of the release of Sgt. Pepper. These are both big milestones, and both Apples will want to capitalize on it. I don't think it was coincidence that they played a track from Sgt. Pepper (Lovely Rita was it? I haven't seen the keynote). Look for an announcement in the near future, followed by a release (of at least Sgt. Pepper) on June 1, which is the 40th anniversary date.
In addition to downloads, I'd also really like to see upgraded CD (or even surround) releases of the UK albums.
mBox
Apr 16, 11:26 AM
Urr no. Sony Vegas had had this sort of pricing for years and is used widely professionally because that was what it was designed for. Do you actually think that being a professional is being about owning a certain piece of software?So true, I know folks still running the original Media 100, GV Edius, MC Meridiens and even first run Premiere.
Folks you really only need one or two video layers to get a job done :)
From my line of work I rarely go higher than 2 since most of my work is done pre NLE (motion design and 3D).
Folks you really only need one or two video layers to get a job done :)
From my line of work I rarely go higher than 2 since most of my work is done pre NLE (motion design and 3D).
DustinT
Apr 11, 09:22 AM
I think we should call them "Professional Pirates (without a ship)". *lol* Lol, not bad.
donlphi
Sep 12, 02:52 PM
Pretty disappointing, although I was the ONLY PERSON on macrumors and apple insider to call the LAME GAME update, which doesn't even work on the current 5G iPOD Video (at least this is what I read somewhere earlier today). I would call that pointless.
Movies... eh... I will still be buying DVDs and pulling them on.
Do current video iPODs support the new movies and TV Show formats?
It was nice of them to show us that they are planning on having an iTV unit.
ugh... I gotta go teach... we'll talk later.
Movies... eh... I will still be buying DVDs and pulling them on.
Do current video iPODs support the new movies and TV Show formats?
It was nice of them to show us that they are planning on having an iTV unit.
ugh... I gotta go teach... we'll talk later.
SamIchi
Oct 27, 06:34 PM
I had no problems before update, and no problems now. I don't see a change in the temp.
I'm grateful that I haven't had any problems with my MB, although I did have a couple kernel panics.
I'm grateful that I haven't had any problems with my MB, although I did have a couple kernel panics.
drlunanerd
Nov 8, 08:23 AM
Yeah the benefit for C2D is the bigger cache size mostly. That's only available on 2GHz and up AFAIK.
I'd still rather have the new potentially bug fixed hardware though.
...and 64 bit, and better SIMD processing etc. Recent MacWorld benchmarks show the same clockspeed C2D 28% faster than the CD in iTunes encoding. That sold it to me.
I'd still rather have the new potentially bug fixed hardware though.
...and 64 bit, and better SIMD processing etc. Recent MacWorld benchmarks show the same clockspeed C2D 28% faster than the CD in iTunes encoding. That sold it to me.
grumps
Nov 8, 06:29 AM
Well, don't believe him. The fact that there already is a 15" MBP should be evidence that Apple will never release a 15" MBP.
Sorry. I meant to say that he told me there will be a 15 inch MacBook:rolleyes:
Sorry. I meant to say that he told me there will be a 15 inch MacBook:rolleyes:
shtoat
Apr 14, 09:36 AM
What the hell? Since when have apple made desktop computers?
xlii
Nov 24, 07:17 AM
I agree. I think at some point (hopefully) Apple will offer Apple Lossless as an iTunes standard. It will just take a small leap in processing power (CPU or GPU) to convert the files quickly on the fly when syncing. I think we're close, as they do it now, but it still takes too long.
But at 256 I think you get very close for most people to find it hard to distinguish between a Lossless file and an AAC file.
I agree, I don't know why apple doesn't already offer applelossless as a choice. I have found that simple music (one guy with a folk guitar) can get away with 256kbs but listen to some busy, complicated music and 256kbs sounds a little muffled compared to the cd (not that cds are perfect).
But at 256 I think you get very close for most people to find it hard to distinguish between a Lossless file and an AAC file.
I agree, I don't know why apple doesn't already offer applelossless as a choice. I have found that simple music (one guy with a folk guitar) can get away with 256kbs but listen to some busy, complicated music and 256kbs sounds a little muffled compared to the cd (not that cds are perfect).
compuwar
Mar 7, 06:29 PM
Miserable weather here today, with heavy rain when it should be snowing :(
Cardinals in my backyard are rain soaked.
http://www.robertgravel.ca/Animals/Oiseaux/MG6964/1206550494_eTRxH-XL.jpg
A little fill flash to get a catchlight in the eye and this would be perfect.
Paul
Cardinals in my backyard are rain soaked.
http://www.robertgravel.ca/Animals/Oiseaux/MG6964/1206550494_eTRxH-XL.jpg
A little fill flash to get a catchlight in the eye and this would be perfect.
Paul
maclaptop
Apr 17, 08:20 AM
Apple does not have the best have a build quality better then everyone else. They have some very good computers, but their are companies who build much better computers you have no evidence to back up your statement. Macs use the same hardware as everyone else.
This is one of the most accurate statements in recent times. Nothing but facts. Thank you.
This is one of the most accurate statements in recent times. Nothing but facts. Thank you.
Nipsy
Oct 13, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by MacCoaster
Also, 999 of 1000 things which get said here have already been researched by BizDev, R&D, Manufacturing, etc. in Cupertino.
----------------------------------------------
Clarify please. You just threw that out of the blue. I'm not understanding where you're getting that from.
What I meant to say is that the things we suggest and clamor for here are things which Apple already knows.
We aren't going to alter their course with any of our statements, save for that 1 in 1000.
Apple is a $5-7 billion dollar company (depending on AAPL when you read this). A full fledged chip maturation is a multi billion dollar process, thusly Apple relies on other larger companies to fab its chips. It provides input, but it is a slave to their whims. Sadly, Motorola's whims have not included advancing the G4 at a 'market leading' pace.
We can tell Apple what we want them to do, but they are aware, and they are doing.
A Power4 derivative with 160+ vector instructions just doesn't make sense for IBM to develop, if they don't have a specific user, or feel like adding Vector based instructions to AIX.
So do what you will, but know that you won't change the future in a positive way by vocalizing.
Also, 999 of 1000 things which get said here have already been researched by BizDev, R&D, Manufacturing, etc. in Cupertino.
----------------------------------------------
Clarify please. You just threw that out of the blue. I'm not understanding where you're getting that from.
What I meant to say is that the things we suggest and clamor for here are things which Apple already knows.
We aren't going to alter their course with any of our statements, save for that 1 in 1000.
Apple is a $5-7 billion dollar company (depending on AAPL when you read this). A full fledged chip maturation is a multi billion dollar process, thusly Apple relies on other larger companies to fab its chips. It provides input, but it is a slave to their whims. Sadly, Motorola's whims have not included advancing the G4 at a 'market leading' pace.
We can tell Apple what we want them to do, but they are aware, and they are doing.
A Power4 derivative with 160+ vector instructions just doesn't make sense for IBM to develop, if they don't have a specific user, or feel like adding Vector based instructions to AIX.
So do what you will, but know that you won't change the future in a positive way by vocalizing.
Arquelis
Aug 3, 02:55 PM
Is that a leopard in the reflection of the X of the disk?
macduke
Apr 11, 12:47 AM
Haha, so can we now bill our client the monthly price if they need vector work done in Illustrator, just like we would bill them for the fonts or anything else?
I started using Photoshop at version 5.5 when I was about 12. So I was kind of confused when I just saw this pop up in my Twitter feed. I had a flashback! Crazy how we have come this far. This new model sounds interesting, but will it beat the people who pirate software? Unlikely.
Now time to dive-in and see what these changes are...
Did anyone see this coming?? Feels almost like a late April Fool's joke.
I started using Photoshop at version 5.5 when I was about 12. So I was kind of confused when I just saw this pop up in my Twitter feed. I had a flashback! Crazy how we have come this far. This new model sounds interesting, but will it beat the people who pirate software? Unlikely.
Now time to dive-in and see what these changes are...
Did anyone see this coming?? Feels almost like a late April Fool's joke.
TheMacFeed
Oct 11, 06:19 PM
http://oi52.tinypic.com/14m85qp.jpg
I like this a lot. Doesn't that light make a glare?
I like this a lot. Doesn't that light make a glare?
ampd
Aug 3, 04:11 PM
So, 7th or 8th?
Monday Aug. 7th
Monday Aug. 7th
xsedrinam
Sep 22, 07:33 PM
So, hypothetically, what if Wal-Mart's CEO doesn't "moderate" their stance, and Apple ink deals with more than Disney including Library titles? Surely Wal-Mart's bean counters and legal eagles have already played the war games scenarios. Who would be the winners if this ratcheted up to another level?
greg555
Dec 1, 10:35 PM
One reason seldom mentioned is people who like a dozen or two Beatles songs but because they are spread across 10 different albums have never bought the CDs.
Now they can buy (just) the songs they like. And I did. (Bought 12 last night and will probably get another 5 or 10.)
Greg
Now they can buy (just) the songs they like. And I did. (Bought 12 last night and will probably get another 5 or 10.)
Greg