madmax_2069
Sep 22, 03:11 PM
you also got to look at people that don't have new or fast computers (i currently fall in this category) and people that don't have a fast internet connection (like people that live to far out of town where they cant get high-speed ) or people that like to have a original copy AKA a dvd to take to another house to watch. that is the people that is buying audio cd's and dvd movies from wally world. so even tho if apple got every studio for ITMS it would not affect those buyers then would it.
wally world needs to see the point, that they are going to be the retail store version of M$
i for one am for ITMS to get all it can to become what it can be. skrew wall-marts they just lost another customer for this bull crap
wally world needs to see the point, that they are going to be the retail store version of M$
i for one am for ITMS to get all it can to become what it can be. skrew wall-marts they just lost another customer for this bull crap
TMay
Oct 13, 10:09 PM
I like your style Nipsy and your points are well taken. I think that a lot of people are just venting.
Personally, I would find it extremely hard to believe that Apple wants to live and die by a Photoshop metric. On the other hand, Intel and AMD don't seem to be making bank on every speed increase either, which tells me that PC's are price constrained commodities for the most part.
Apple, on the other hand, is quite aware of the dollars that can be generated with a quick and substantial speed bump in January, especially as most of the bleeding edge types that have stuck their noses up at the 7455 machines.
I have a dual 500 with a hardware raid (ata66), and I can get a good speed bump by jumping to a 133 raid and 7200 RPM drives, should I need to stretch this a bit more. Then, of course, there are dual 800 and 1G upgrades, though I would need to see quite a price decrease to be interested in these.
Is it worth it to incrementally bump the machine? Probably not.
I bought my first, a 128, in Feb 84. There wasn't, for all practical purposes, any software other than MacWrite and MacPaint. Then we went through both the Sculley and Amelio eras.
Apple has had its up's and down's. Apple's definitely on an up swing now with the release of Jaguar.
I advocate patience regarding hardware. Apple knows quite well that we want to splend our money. 3 more months, I would think.
Personally, I would find it extremely hard to believe that Apple wants to live and die by a Photoshop metric. On the other hand, Intel and AMD don't seem to be making bank on every speed increase either, which tells me that PC's are price constrained commodities for the most part.
Apple, on the other hand, is quite aware of the dollars that can be generated with a quick and substantial speed bump in January, especially as most of the bleeding edge types that have stuck their noses up at the 7455 machines.
I have a dual 500 with a hardware raid (ata66), and I can get a good speed bump by jumping to a 133 raid and 7200 RPM drives, should I need to stretch this a bit more. Then, of course, there are dual 800 and 1G upgrades, though I would need to see quite a price decrease to be interested in these.
Is it worth it to incrementally bump the machine? Probably not.
I bought my first, a 128, in Feb 84. There wasn't, for all practical purposes, any software other than MacWrite and MacPaint. Then we went through both the Sculley and Amelio eras.
Apple has had its up's and down's. Apple's definitely on an up swing now with the release of Jaguar.
I advocate patience regarding hardware. Apple knows quite well that we want to splend our money. 3 more months, I would think.
Sky Blue
Aug 3, 06:52 PM
is it just me or is that an aluminum cased ipod nano?
It's just you.
It's just you.
Demoman
Aug 2, 06:55 PM
Do you know what a computer without drivers is? A paperweight. The OS is not a single monolithic thing; it's made up of many components. The notion of what is "written into the OS" is more complicated than you seem to think, and it's childish to dismiss a vulnerability because it's in a driver.
Actually it's the smug attitude of so many Mac owners that makes them such satisfying targets. You reap what you sow. I've been using Macs since 1984 (and PCs about as long) and Mac users get on my nerves sometimes.
"Make believe" Mac supporters get on my nerves ALL the time. I doubt many of the readers here need to be schooled about the services device drivers provide. When I read the post you criticized, my impression was the author was simply stating that Apple did not write the driver. You seem to want to focus the blame on Apple. So, what is your agenda? Are you just here to bust on Apple?
Actually it's the smug attitude of so many Mac owners that makes them such satisfying targets. You reap what you sow. I've been using Macs since 1984 (and PCs about as long) and Mac users get on my nerves sometimes.
"Make believe" Mac supporters get on my nerves ALL the time. I doubt many of the readers here need to be schooled about the services device drivers provide. When I read the post you criticized, my impression was the author was simply stating that Apple did not write the driver. You seem to want to focus the blame on Apple. So, what is your agenda? Are you just here to bust on Apple?
E.Lizardo
May 5, 07:43 AM
man i wish 3D would just disappear...
Agreed.I couldn't possibly hate it more.If they do it hopefully I'll be able to turn it off,or better yet buy a separate model without it.
Worst gimmick ever.
Agreed.I couldn't possibly hate it more.If they do it hopefully I'll be able to turn it off,or better yet buy a separate model without it.
Worst gimmick ever.
txa1265
Sep 22, 03:51 PM
Which parts of Reach fit this description?? I can only think of 1 area that was reused, and it was a part of the game you just move through pretty quickly. On top of that, the two times you visit the area are separated in time, both story-wise and mission number (3 & 9), so they have a VERY different feel each time you go through. But hey, if you have other areas, I'm all ears.
I was joking around - in the original game there were literally sections that were copied and pasted to artificially lengthen the game. It has been talked about ages ago, nothing new. That is different than revisiting places, which is common in many games ...
I was joking around - in the original game there were literally sections that were copied and pasted to artificially lengthen the game. It has been talked about ages ago, nothing new. That is different than revisiting places, which is common in many games ...
ciTiger
May 5, 05:00 AM
For those complaining about costs - ever thought that maybe the whole purpose of negotiation is for the carrier to host and distribute those updates free of charge to end users rather than chewing up customer's monthly traffic allowance?
I wanna know how that will work for the rest of the world carriers....
I wanna know how that will work for the rest of the world carriers....
Chupa Chupa
Sep 12, 03:44 PM
I'm stopping at the Apple Store after work to (hopefully) get the 8GB. I wish it came in other colors. I really like the pink and the green.
They are in stock there already?
They are in stock there already?
Michael383
Mar 23, 06:59 PM
Great story and a good PR move for Apple.
SMM
Nov 27, 12:40 PM
They banned songs like Lucy in the Sky and Ticket to Ride... (not to mention Metallica's Seek and Destroy) because the songs reminded people of the event.
I see. I wonder who conducted this sorely-needed poll? I bet they banned "Ahab the Arab" too.
I see. I wonder who conducted this sorely-needed poll? I bet they banned "Ahab the Arab" too.
voyagerd
Aug 8, 01:09 AM
Has anybody found Xcode 2.4 yet? It's not up on ADC as far as I can see.
beebler
May 4, 11:16 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
I don't know about a 3D display but Apple was trying to get the third gen iPad out around the same time as the next iPhone, so Septemberish.
I don't know about a 3D display but Apple was trying to get the third gen iPad out around the same time as the next iPhone, so Septemberish.
mscriv
Apr 11, 11:57 AM
I object to the notion that good deeds I do are due to vanity, pride etc.
No, sorry, you cannot have that one. "Altruistic" does not coincide with "vanity and self glorification". In my filthy heathen state of unsaved gracelessness, I still do things for which my only reward is a smile. And even when I do have an ulterior motive ("you can return the favor at your leisure, to me or to someone else"), how does that detract from my having done well and good by someone else?
I find this statement utterly appalling. Do those who sacrifice themselves for others do so from selfish motives?
I agree. There is so much wrong with the original statement in addition to your point. I consider "goodness" to get your spot in heaven the ultimate in selfishness. Also, what about gods other than Jesus, are the good things performed in their name just as "selfless"?
Ok, good questions and thoughts. Let me explain/expound upon my statement. The bolded part below seems to be what is drawing the most reaction.
An accurate understanding of original sin does not mean that man is completely "evil" in the sense that we are incapable of doing works that would be considered "good" or altruistic. The human spirit is capable of many good things, but without an accurate understanding of who God is and our relationship to him these good works become nothing but acts of vanity and self glorification that serve only to advance pride and promote self-reliance.
I am not speaking about conscious motivation within an individuals actions/behavior, although that could be true as we all know people do at times act out of selfish and prideful intentions.
I'm talking about a theological understanding of man's state before God. For those that do not believe in a higher power or absolute truth, man, in and of himself, is the highest order of existence/being/evolution, etc. etc.. Thus, any and all accomplishments of man ("good works") are then viewed as self evident truths to this proposition. Man's capacity for altruism, self sacrifice, and compassion are seen as proof of his independence from God. "See what we can accomplish on our own... we don't need God." In this manner all of man's action is an act of self glorification and self reliance.
I'm in a "helping profession" and work daily with people who seek to support and serve others. Many do this out of the "goodness of their own heart" and genuinely do not seek any form of return for their efforts. On a human level these actions are noble and sacrificial and I applaud them. However, on a spiritual level, I must recognize that scripture teaches us that our "good deeds" are worthless if our heart is not right with God.
Please understand, this doesn't mean that the positive results of these actions are meaningless. For example, giving food to the homeless is a sacrificial act that does help people in need, but it will in no way earn you "points" with God. The Bible does not teach a theology of works. It's not about what you do, it's about your relationship with Christ.
Again, as I always say, this is ultimately an issue of faith and I completely understand that it can be hard to comprehend for some. And it is a subtle nuance to understand the difference between doing something because you adhere to a set of principles (right vs. wrong) and doing it because it is an outflow of your relationship with God.
It's like I told someone recently in a conversation we were having. I don't stay true to my wife because being unfaithful to her would be the morally wrong thing to do. I could care less about the moral principle of marital faithfulness. My motivation for staying true to my wife is that I have an intimate loving relationship with her and I would never want to hurt her or damage that relationship in any way.
Which takes us into rougher territory. If works are relatively insignificant in the scheme of salvation, your absolute moral code starts to crumble and fall in on itself. For, why should a believer bother to follow it if the saviour is always near at hand to forgive and redeem?
You may not realize it Sydde, but what you are saying is still along the lines of a works based relationship with God and that is not what the Bible teaches. It's not about a revolving door of "messing up" and and then asking for forgiveness. Christ death paid the price in full for all sin (past, present, and future). What matters is the condition of your heart before him and the intimacy of your relationship with him. Within that context are you seeking your own way including your own selfish desires or are you seeking to be the servant leader he wants you to be. The examples you gave in your post were all of people being selfishly motivated for their own gain.
In light of the examples of history (perhaps including those in the bible itself), how can you say that religion has made anyone a better person than they would have been? To me, it looks like religion has made the world a worse place than it might have been without it.
I'd think you would agree that people like Mother Theresa were able to successfully live out their faith with the goal of bringing glory to God while serving others. She's just the first example that pops into my head, but there are countless others. Again, it's not about "religion" making us "better people", that's a selfish manner of thinking. My relationship with God is not about me, it's about him.
"Many people mistake our work for our vocation. Our vocation is the love of Jesus."
"There is always the danger that we may just do the work for the sake of the work. This is where the respect and the love and the devotion come in - that we do it to God, to Christ, and that's why we try to do it as beautifully as possible."
~ Mother Theresa
Every time I hear about how we are naturally selfish and corrupt, I hear the utterer trying to apologize for their own faults by expanding them upon all others. As a counselor, you should be familiar with the mechanism called "projection".
I'm very familiar with projection. I can assure you that is not what's happening here. I'm merely presenting what God has communicated to us through the Bible. Could it be that your skepticism and cynicism is a projection of something within you? Why don't you come over he and lie on this couch and tell me about your mother... ;)
Yet, again, the absolutes get bent. When believers run up against a moral wall that divides them from their goals, they seek the counsel of a cleric. The cleric typically sympathizes with the believer's plight and very often finds a way to interpret the scripture to turn the question to the believer's favor. So you have your absolutes, but they are also flexible. What good then are they, that they can be molded to suit your needs? How is this better than situational ethics (logic, reason and compromise), other than to employ scholars in the service of the almighty?
Well, first of all, "clerics" are not required for us to interpret scripture or have a relationship with God. When Christ was crucified he tore the temple veil representing that his sacrifice has made the way for man to have a direct relationship with God, no human intermediary is required. As far as prooftexting or manipulating scripture for your own personal motives due to a presenting dilemma, well, I'm sure you already know my answer to this based on my previous comments. Scripture stands alone as authoritative regardless of how I "feel" about it or what I "want" it to say. If I'm seeking to find an "exception" in scripture to justify my own position then my heart is not in the right place.
I have had more than a third of a century (from teenage years) to develop my philosophy and unbeliefs, and you are obviously quite steadfast in yours, so yes, there can be little doubt of the mexican stand-off. Does it trouble you? As hoary and mulish as I may be, I still find merit in these discussions, because they draw things out into the light that I had not bothered to look at. You do teach me things, though they are almost certainly not the things you intend. I hope you in some way also benefit, it would be a shame to think this only leads you to despair.
Fret not my friend. I think there is extreme merit in these discussions and I appreciate the respectful way in which many of us here are able to engage each other on such topics.
As far as me being troubled or in "despair" the answer to your question is both yes and no. I do seek to consistently and genuinely live out my faith and thus I do wish to see other's come into relationship with Christ (you know that whole "go ye therefore" thing in the Bible). However, do I judge others and base my entire relationship with them on evangelistic purposes? No. One of the greatest gifts God has given us is free will, in fact, without free will everything we are talking about falls apart. I respect, just as God has designed it to be, that people have the freedom and the ability to reject him and live their life as they see fit. I love, value, relate to, and learn from others regardless of their spiritual beliefs. It would be foolish of me to limit my relationships with people solely on their spirituality or lack thereof. My goal is to accept people as they are, treat them with dignity and respect, and seek out how I might serve or support them in the context of our relationship.
Besides, if I do happen to get down about it, I know a pretty good therapist. ;)
Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to address the questions/comments that had been made. :)
No, sorry, you cannot have that one. "Altruistic" does not coincide with "vanity and self glorification". In my filthy heathen state of unsaved gracelessness, I still do things for which my only reward is a smile. And even when I do have an ulterior motive ("you can return the favor at your leisure, to me or to someone else"), how does that detract from my having done well and good by someone else?
I find this statement utterly appalling. Do those who sacrifice themselves for others do so from selfish motives?
I agree. There is so much wrong with the original statement in addition to your point. I consider "goodness" to get your spot in heaven the ultimate in selfishness. Also, what about gods other than Jesus, are the good things performed in their name just as "selfless"?
Ok, good questions and thoughts. Let me explain/expound upon my statement. The bolded part below seems to be what is drawing the most reaction.
An accurate understanding of original sin does not mean that man is completely "evil" in the sense that we are incapable of doing works that would be considered "good" or altruistic. The human spirit is capable of many good things, but without an accurate understanding of who God is and our relationship to him these good works become nothing but acts of vanity and self glorification that serve only to advance pride and promote self-reliance.
I am not speaking about conscious motivation within an individuals actions/behavior, although that could be true as we all know people do at times act out of selfish and prideful intentions.
I'm talking about a theological understanding of man's state before God. For those that do not believe in a higher power or absolute truth, man, in and of himself, is the highest order of existence/being/evolution, etc. etc.. Thus, any and all accomplishments of man ("good works") are then viewed as self evident truths to this proposition. Man's capacity for altruism, self sacrifice, and compassion are seen as proof of his independence from God. "See what we can accomplish on our own... we don't need God." In this manner all of man's action is an act of self glorification and self reliance.
I'm in a "helping profession" and work daily with people who seek to support and serve others. Many do this out of the "goodness of their own heart" and genuinely do not seek any form of return for their efforts. On a human level these actions are noble and sacrificial and I applaud them. However, on a spiritual level, I must recognize that scripture teaches us that our "good deeds" are worthless if our heart is not right with God.
Please understand, this doesn't mean that the positive results of these actions are meaningless. For example, giving food to the homeless is a sacrificial act that does help people in need, but it will in no way earn you "points" with God. The Bible does not teach a theology of works. It's not about what you do, it's about your relationship with Christ.
Again, as I always say, this is ultimately an issue of faith and I completely understand that it can be hard to comprehend for some. And it is a subtle nuance to understand the difference between doing something because you adhere to a set of principles (right vs. wrong) and doing it because it is an outflow of your relationship with God.
It's like I told someone recently in a conversation we were having. I don't stay true to my wife because being unfaithful to her would be the morally wrong thing to do. I could care less about the moral principle of marital faithfulness. My motivation for staying true to my wife is that I have an intimate loving relationship with her and I would never want to hurt her or damage that relationship in any way.
Which takes us into rougher territory. If works are relatively insignificant in the scheme of salvation, your absolute moral code starts to crumble and fall in on itself. For, why should a believer bother to follow it if the saviour is always near at hand to forgive and redeem?
You may not realize it Sydde, but what you are saying is still along the lines of a works based relationship with God and that is not what the Bible teaches. It's not about a revolving door of "messing up" and and then asking for forgiveness. Christ death paid the price in full for all sin (past, present, and future). What matters is the condition of your heart before him and the intimacy of your relationship with him. Within that context are you seeking your own way including your own selfish desires or are you seeking to be the servant leader he wants you to be. The examples you gave in your post were all of people being selfishly motivated for their own gain.
In light of the examples of history (perhaps including those in the bible itself), how can you say that religion has made anyone a better person than they would have been? To me, it looks like religion has made the world a worse place than it might have been without it.
I'd think you would agree that people like Mother Theresa were able to successfully live out their faith with the goal of bringing glory to God while serving others. She's just the first example that pops into my head, but there are countless others. Again, it's not about "religion" making us "better people", that's a selfish manner of thinking. My relationship with God is not about me, it's about him.
"Many people mistake our work for our vocation. Our vocation is the love of Jesus."
"There is always the danger that we may just do the work for the sake of the work. This is where the respect and the love and the devotion come in - that we do it to God, to Christ, and that's why we try to do it as beautifully as possible."
~ Mother Theresa
Every time I hear about how we are naturally selfish and corrupt, I hear the utterer trying to apologize for their own faults by expanding them upon all others. As a counselor, you should be familiar with the mechanism called "projection".
I'm very familiar with projection. I can assure you that is not what's happening here. I'm merely presenting what God has communicated to us through the Bible. Could it be that your skepticism and cynicism is a projection of something within you? Why don't you come over he and lie on this couch and tell me about your mother... ;)
Yet, again, the absolutes get bent. When believers run up against a moral wall that divides them from their goals, they seek the counsel of a cleric. The cleric typically sympathizes with the believer's plight and very often finds a way to interpret the scripture to turn the question to the believer's favor. So you have your absolutes, but they are also flexible. What good then are they, that they can be molded to suit your needs? How is this better than situational ethics (logic, reason and compromise), other than to employ scholars in the service of the almighty?
Well, first of all, "clerics" are not required for us to interpret scripture or have a relationship with God. When Christ was crucified he tore the temple veil representing that his sacrifice has made the way for man to have a direct relationship with God, no human intermediary is required. As far as prooftexting or manipulating scripture for your own personal motives due to a presenting dilemma, well, I'm sure you already know my answer to this based on my previous comments. Scripture stands alone as authoritative regardless of how I "feel" about it or what I "want" it to say. If I'm seeking to find an "exception" in scripture to justify my own position then my heart is not in the right place.
I have had more than a third of a century (from teenage years) to develop my philosophy and unbeliefs, and you are obviously quite steadfast in yours, so yes, there can be little doubt of the mexican stand-off. Does it trouble you? As hoary and mulish as I may be, I still find merit in these discussions, because they draw things out into the light that I had not bothered to look at. You do teach me things, though they are almost certainly not the things you intend. I hope you in some way also benefit, it would be a shame to think this only leads you to despair.
Fret not my friend. I think there is extreme merit in these discussions and I appreciate the respectful way in which many of us here are able to engage each other on such topics.
As far as me being troubled or in "despair" the answer to your question is both yes and no. I do seek to consistently and genuinely live out my faith and thus I do wish to see other's come into relationship with Christ (you know that whole "go ye therefore" thing in the Bible). However, do I judge others and base my entire relationship with them on evangelistic purposes? No. One of the greatest gifts God has given us is free will, in fact, without free will everything we are talking about falls apart. I respect, just as God has designed it to be, that people have the freedom and the ability to reject him and live their life as they see fit. I love, value, relate to, and learn from others regardless of their spiritual beliefs. It would be foolish of me to limit my relationships with people solely on their spirituality or lack thereof. My goal is to accept people as they are, treat them with dignity and respect, and seek out how I might serve or support them in the context of our relationship.
Besides, if I do happen to get down about it, I know a pretty good therapist. ;)
Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to address the questions/comments that had been made. :)
Rt&Dzine
Apr 28, 10:49 AM
Anybody got a alternative method for reaching CorvusCamenarum, such as email, text, etc.? I don't want it, and I'm not asking that it get posted, but if someone has a method for checking if he's ok, I hope you will. Not to be dramatic, but parts of Tuscaloosa were obliterated yesterday around the time of his "last activity" time of 5:00 p.m. Thanks.
Let's hope he/she's okay. A million people in Alabama are without power.
Let's hope he/she's okay. A million people in Alabama are without power.
macUser2007
Nov 12, 03:12 PM
Amazing, how many half-wits are out there!
There is a larger issue in Hewitt's statement, which seems to totally go over some people's heads.
And to the "Facebook sucks" crowd: may be so, but there are a lot more Facebook users, than iPhone users. So it's still important.
And really, over the last few years, my otherwise beloved Apple has turned into the George W. Bush of PC companies. Look at their newly found moral stance, regarding applications. Or their strong-arm tactics. Or the picking of wars not likely to be in their own interest - like the ones with Google, and Adobe.
Or, the fact, that the truly religious (and uninformed), blindly follow, no matter where.
There is a larger issue in Hewitt's statement, which seems to totally go over some people's heads.
And to the "Facebook sucks" crowd: may be so, but there are a lot more Facebook users, than iPhone users. So it's still important.
And really, over the last few years, my otherwise beloved Apple has turned into the George W. Bush of PC companies. Look at their newly found moral stance, regarding applications. Or their strong-arm tactics. Or the picking of wars not likely to be in their own interest - like the ones with Google, and Adobe.
Or, the fact, that the truly religious (and uninformed), blindly follow, no matter where.
XaPHER
Oct 26, 03:44 PM
That's quite a bit of BEIGE!
I love collecting old-generation macs:)!
I love collecting old-generation macs:)!
slinger1968
Aug 30, 11:43 PM
Of course, that also assumes that the average person walking into a major retailer would or could know that little bit of info.The average consumer certainly could know about oem versions of windows if they did any research at all, it's pretty much common knowledge in the PC world.
Personally, I have no plans whatsoever to buy Vista.That's fine, I'm not trying to convince anyone to switch to windows. No need to get defensive.
I just wanted people on here with little to no windows background to understand that the $400 retail price isn't what you will pay for the software when you buy it included with a system or on it's own oem.
Personally, I have no plans whatsoever to buy Vista.That's fine, I'm not trying to convince anyone to switch to windows. No need to get defensive.
I just wanted people on here with little to no windows background to understand that the $400 retail price isn't what you will pay for the software when you buy it included with a system or on it's own oem.
MacBoobsPro
Aug 8, 10:02 AM
Provided they added the BT option.....
Oh yeh... bugger! :o
Oh yeh... bugger! :o
xxBURT0Nxx
May 5, 10:51 AM
They just capped us home and business owners (DSL and Fiber)... :eek:
I would imagine that wireless will follow. AT&T and Verizon will have to honor contracts for the time being. But when the contract is over... :eek:
I don't know if they "legally" are required to, but even when your two year contract is up they don't change it to one of their "new plans"
They will allow you to be grandfathered in as long as you wish, and as long as you continue to pay your monthly bill. Even when you extend a new 2 year contract and buy a new phone, you are agreeing to keep the service for 2 years, but they will allow you to stay on your original plan. That's how we are allowed to have unlimited data and iPhone 4's.
I would imagine that wireless will follow. AT&T and Verizon will have to honor contracts for the time being. But when the contract is over... :eek:
I don't know if they "legally" are required to, but even when your two year contract is up they don't change it to one of their "new plans"
They will allow you to be grandfathered in as long as you wish, and as long as you continue to pay your monthly bill. Even when you extend a new 2 year contract and buy a new phone, you are agreeing to keep the service for 2 years, but they will allow you to stay on your original plan. That's how we are allowed to have unlimited data and iPhone 4's.
michaelrjohnson
Aug 8, 11:56 AM
All of Apple's supposed "new" features are not as new as they seem.
I like what they are doing with the stuff, but right now they need to save their *** and give away some "secret" features before people stop caring.
I don't think that they're in any danger of that. This was a sneak peek. It was not a Beta Release, it is not a "features complete" release. Come January, if there aren't major improvements, then I think what you're suggesting could be discussed further. Until then, it's not fair to say that Leopard isn't going to be a success. We simply don't know enough about the final version to make any level of educated statement in that regard.
I like what they are doing with the stuff, but right now they need to save their *** and give away some "secret" features before people stop caring.
I don't think that they're in any danger of that. This was a sneak peek. It was not a Beta Release, it is not a "features complete" release. Come January, if there aren't major improvements, then I think what you're suggesting could be discussed further. Until then, it's not fair to say that Leopard isn't going to be a success. We simply don't know enough about the final version to make any level of educated statement in that regard.
CaptMurdock
Mar 29, 11:24 PM
As I pointed out upthread:
Anybody who thinks this is anywhere near what Dubya got us into with Iraq has the reading comprehension of a head of cabbage.
To wit:
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent morality no longer matters, only justifying war and protecting the political future of the first black president.
The constitution was written in regards to war specifically to stifle the power of the president which the founders knew would be more predisposed to war, and to put the power in the hands of the people via congress. In fact, as Tom Woods recently put it...
Anybody who thinks this is anywhere near what Dubya got us into with Iraq has the reading comprehension of a head of cabbage.
To wit:
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent morality no longer matters, only justifying war and protecting the political future of the first black president.
The constitution was written in regards to war specifically to stifle the power of the president which the founders knew would be more predisposed to war, and to put the power in the hands of the people via congress. In fact, as Tom Woods recently put it...
champ01
Mar 29, 06:30 AM
RadioShack are a bunch of AHoles who only care about money.
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/ravallirepublic.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/9/eb/1d5/9eb1d5dc-5692-11e0-b736-001cc4c002e0-revisions/4d8c105c9673b.preview-300.jpg
This is not a joke :mad:
Don't believe me? take a look at the next article
http://ravallirepublic.com/news/local/article_ad32d46c-5692-11e0-ae2b-001cc4c002e0.html
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/ravallirepublic.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/9/eb/1d5/9eb1d5dc-5692-11e0-b736-001cc4c002e0-revisions/4d8c105c9673b.preview-300.jpg
This is not a joke :mad:
Don't believe me? take a look at the next article
http://ravallirepublic.com/news/local/article_ad32d46c-5692-11e0-ae2b-001cc4c002e0.html
mBox
Apr 15, 12:28 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
If you think about it, it's not all too surprising that some of these "professionals" are getting so worked up and sulky over this release. The notion that "pro editing" can belong to just about anyone, rather than an exclusive circle of elites, poses an existential crisis. Apple's re-thinking of editing is also a re-thinking of what it means to be "professional". The announcement sheds light on a future in which their "advanced", learned techniques are no longer advantageous. The "industry pros" are facing the plight of impending impotence. It's not something anyone would really openly admit, but I think they're feeling a bit naked, stripped of their status.
Who can blame them for being pissy?being one of them, I can honestly say were just a bunch of jaded ***** ;)
Yea this is old news to me. I was there when FCP first came out and the Premiere/Media100 folks were in a tiff about Apple getting to close to the mid-range cause then Avid was around 100k for a turn-key system.
its old news, everyone likes to complain.
I was at the SuperMeet still fresh from hearing Avid and Kevin Smith lovefest.
I did not see that demo coming ;)
I was floored and cant wait to see what the future holds for all interfaces.
Please folks get off the iMovie already.
This new GUI reminds me of a lot of older/newer higher-end apps such as Resolve, Composer (SGI sad answer to After Effects), etc...
Its not iMovie unless you treat it like iMovie :P
If you think about it, it's not all too surprising that some of these "professionals" are getting so worked up and sulky over this release. The notion that "pro editing" can belong to just about anyone, rather than an exclusive circle of elites, poses an existential crisis. Apple's re-thinking of editing is also a re-thinking of what it means to be "professional". The announcement sheds light on a future in which their "advanced", learned techniques are no longer advantageous. The "industry pros" are facing the plight of impending impotence. It's not something anyone would really openly admit, but I think they're feeling a bit naked, stripped of their status.
Who can blame them for being pissy?being one of them, I can honestly say were just a bunch of jaded ***** ;)
Yea this is old news to me. I was there when FCP first came out and the Premiere/Media100 folks were in a tiff about Apple getting to close to the mid-range cause then Avid was around 100k for a turn-key system.
its old news, everyone likes to complain.
I was at the SuperMeet still fresh from hearing Avid and Kevin Smith lovefest.
I did not see that demo coming ;)
I was floored and cant wait to see what the future holds for all interfaces.
Please folks get off the iMovie already.
This new GUI reminds me of a lot of older/newer higher-end apps such as Resolve, Composer (SGI sad answer to After Effects), etc...
Its not iMovie unless you treat it like iMovie :P
WigWag Workshop
Apr 15, 06:51 AM
Being a new "switcher" I can see why Apple continues to grow. My co-worker got me hooked, and I in turn, got my friend hooked.
No comments:
Post a Comment