WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 10:11 AM
No. What I wanted to say is that fat persons CAN do something against that condition, but homosexuals can't. Obviously. So they deserve such actions like It Gets Better more than fat people. In my honest opinion.
But are you saying homosexuals should change it if they could?
But are you saying homosexuals should change it if they could?
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
TimUSCA
Apr 28, 07:55 AM
Well you have a point there. The iPod was a so-called fad too. It took 8 or 9 years for it to wear off and see fickle consumers switch to the next fad, the iPhone and iPad. The iPad-like devices may be a fad but it's likely to die out b/c a it's replaced by a next gen device. Apple is already showing it's cards in melding OS X with hints of iOS.
I disagree. The only reason people stopped buying the iPod was because it was more convenient to have a phone and iPod in a single device. Once people started buying iOS and Android devices, they no longer *needed* an iPod.
So the iPod didn't die down because it was a fad... it died down because technology has replaced it. The need for a PMP such as the iPod is still very much alive, just in a different form.
I disagree. The only reason people stopped buying the iPod was because it was more convenient to have a phone and iPod in a single device. Once people started buying iOS and Android devices, they no longer *needed* an iPod.
So the iPod didn't die down because it was a fad... it died down because technology has replaced it. The need for a PMP such as the iPod is still very much alive, just in a different form.
Sydde
Mar 14, 08:39 PM
As for the divine wind bit...
It was a historical allusion.
It was a historical allusion.
GGJstudios
May 2, 09:15 PM
Just another reason for people to use Firefox.
Unchecking a single box isn't justification for switching browsers. If you don't like Safari, fine. But this isn't a reason for anyone to leave Safari.
Unchecking a single box isn't justification for switching browsers. If you don't like Safari, fine. But this isn't a reason for anyone to leave Safari.
CaoCao
Mar 25, 03:20 PM
Damn right. What are we supposed to say- "Oh, you don't like us and want to deny us rights? Ok, that's just your opinion! Cool!" **** that. Sorry, not gonna happen.
You have to prove the rights existed in the first place otherwise I could argue the government is denying my right to drive a tank
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
*snip*
Do you even understand how the Roman Catholic Church much less the Catholic Church works?
No argument except as to the point. This would only be a relevant criticism if I were holding Catholics responsible for an attitude held by some Christian sects, but not by Catholics themselves. On the contrary, the Catholic attitude towards homosexuality in question is common across much of Christendom.
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
This is about the Roman Catholic Church not Christendom. Also the attitude is not shared, many Protestant groups see people as evil and wicked, the Roman Catholic Church sees homosexuals as people in need of love and support.
By mainstream Catholic I mean someone who follows all the rules of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
You have to prove the rights existed in the first place otherwise I could argue the government is denying my right to drive a tank
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
*snip*
Do you even understand how the Roman Catholic Church much less the Catholic Church works?
No argument except as to the point. This would only be a relevant criticism if I were holding Catholics responsible for an attitude held by some Christian sects, but not by Catholics themselves. On the contrary, the Catholic attitude towards homosexuality in question is common across much of Christendom.
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
This is about the Roman Catholic Church not Christendom. Also the attitude is not shared, many Protestant groups see people as evil and wicked, the Roman Catholic Church sees homosexuals as people in need of love and support.
By mainstream Catholic I mean someone who follows all the rules of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
caity13cait
Sep 22, 03:46 PM
Hi maybe this topic has been covered in the last 4 pages, but if the itv has video out won't that mean that you can record off of it, like hook it to a dvd burner or even a vhs? Maybe I am missing something here.
Multimedia
Sep 26, 10:43 AM
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480
I know they're making a PCI Express, DDR2, SATA II version though. Old news to me...Thanks but that looks like it's only of PCs. Do you know it works in Mac G5 Quads and Mac Pros?
I went to the GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY CO website and it looks like they don't even make that i-RAM card any more. The link to the above article is from July 25, 2005 more than a year ago.
I know they're making a PCI Express, DDR2, SATA II version though. Old news to me...Thanks but that looks like it's only of PCs. Do you know it works in Mac G5 Quads and Mac Pros?
I went to the GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY CO website and it looks like they don't even make that i-RAM card any more. The link to the above article is from July 25, 2005 more than a year ago.
ryme4reson
Oct 8, 12:21 PM
one thing is certain, the athlon is faster than the duron, the pentium 4 is faster than the celeron, and the G4 is faster (in photoshop) than the G3...but beyond that, it is hard to get a perfect reading
Now I will agree with that!!!!
Now I will agree with that!!!!
entatlrg
Apr 24, 11:55 AM
It's just another way of the 'stronger minded' to power and control the 'weaker minded' in the world. That's it.
Backtothemac
Oct 7, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by TheT
I think Mac users just live in their happy little world and think their computers are still the best... well, wake up!
As of now, PCs kick every Mac's ass, they are just simply faster! Mhz may not matter that much, but a 2Ghz DP compared to a 1.25Ghz DP has to be faster, if you configure it right.
The reason I use a mac is the software, no Windows can beat OSX! And, as a matter of fact, my mac looks better than any of the pcs my friends have...
Um, no. You are wrong. Just because the Intel machine is 2GHZ doesn't mean squat. Pipelines, stages, all of this matters. Don't assume anything about the quality of a 25 year old architecture. X86 blows crap, and always will.
I think Mac users just live in their happy little world and think their computers are still the best... well, wake up!
As of now, PCs kick every Mac's ass, they are just simply faster! Mhz may not matter that much, but a 2Ghz DP compared to a 1.25Ghz DP has to be faster, if you configure it right.
The reason I use a mac is the software, no Windows can beat OSX! And, as a matter of fact, my mac looks better than any of the pcs my friends have...
Um, no. You are wrong. Just because the Intel machine is 2GHZ doesn't mean squat. Pipelines, stages, all of this matters. Don't assume anything about the quality of a 25 year old architecture. X86 blows crap, and always will.
Rot'nApple
May 5, 03:40 PM
Dismissive Title Macrumors!
Shouldn't that read 'SOME' AT&T Customers Continuing to Experience Excessive Dropped Calls?!
When Gizmodo leaked the iPhone photos, I talked to a friend with an iPhone 3GS and she has had it for well over a year in my local area, surrounding cities and even states. It is her only phone, no more land line and she loves to talk on the phone. Even before iPhone she was burning up the minutes.
Anyway, not owning an iPhone myself, but this might be the model I've been waiting for, I asked her again, for her experience using the iPhone on AT&T's network regarding their service and if she had experienced problems, knowing all the complaints we hear and I'm not saying they aren't happening and are not legitimate, but what of my stomping grounds where I'll most likely be using the phone 99 percent of the time... What of it? Her answer...
No Problemo (in honor of all the illegal aliens celbrating Cinco de Mayo by going to the Los Suns basketball game without any tickets 'cuz Lord knows you can't ask for "Papers Please" err tickets! :D
Shouldn't that read 'SOME' AT&T Customers Continuing to Experience Excessive Dropped Calls?!
When Gizmodo leaked the iPhone photos, I talked to a friend with an iPhone 3GS and she has had it for well over a year in my local area, surrounding cities and even states. It is her only phone, no more land line and she loves to talk on the phone. Even before iPhone she was burning up the minutes.
Anyway, not owning an iPhone myself, but this might be the model I've been waiting for, I asked her again, for her experience using the iPhone on AT&T's network regarding their service and if she had experienced problems, knowing all the complaints we hear and I'm not saying they aren't happening and are not legitimate, but what of my stomping grounds where I'll most likely be using the phone 99 percent of the time... What of it? Her answer...
No Problemo (in honor of all the illegal aliens celbrating Cinco de Mayo by going to the Los Suns basketball game without any tickets 'cuz Lord knows you can't ask for "Papers Please" err tickets! :D
T-Bone
Sep 12, 04:16 PM
I bought a DVI->S-Video adapter for $15 and an S-Video cable for about $20. Guess what. I can watch TV shows and movies downloaded to my hard drive on my TV. Sooooo.... $35 vs. $300. Let me see.
I realize they are saying that you're getting high-def, and it's wireless, but I have a hard time believing that a movie you can download in a half hour will be as good of quality as a DVD which is nearly 8gb in size. And yes, I realize part of those 8gb are extras and such, which of course you won't be getting even though you are paying close to what you would pay for a brand new DVD. Also, I have wires running all over the place already (cable, phone, speakers, electrical, etc.) so one more wire isn't killing me.
I'm sure there will be people that buy into this. How many? I predict very few.
I realize they are saying that you're getting high-def, and it's wireless, but I have a hard time believing that a movie you can download in a half hour will be as good of quality as a DVD which is nearly 8gb in size. And yes, I realize part of those 8gb are extras and such, which of course you won't be getting even though you are paying close to what you would pay for a brand new DVD. Also, I have wires running all over the place already (cable, phone, speakers, electrical, etc.) so one more wire isn't killing me.
I'm sure there will be people that buy into this. How many? I predict very few.
backinblack875
Apr 8, 11:03 PM
I hope they poach someone that likes BUTTONS.
WHAT?! the best thing about the iphone IS TOUCH!!!! NO MORE BUTTONS!!!
WHAT?! the best thing about the iphone IS TOUCH!!!! NO MORE BUTTONS!!!
jefhatfield
Oct 12, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by snoopy
True for many of us. For applications that use a lot of math functions, it makes a big difference. So, for others it does matter. They may be in the minority, but a very important group of users. In less than a year the picture will change, and that small group will be very pleased with the Mac. For now, there is nothing anyone can do about it.
those math functions are extremely complex and hard to do fast if we stay way behind the curve of the pc world
i was in this computer repair class where we had to do the math, some of the math that a processor did, so we could appreciate that little thing
in the old days of computing, way back when in the 1970s, many computing funtions had to be done by phd mathematicians and there were very few silicon "math co-processors"
early computer science college programs were thus a lot like math programs...it's so funny, actually sad, to see how many older, math literate techies were completely unable to relate when gui came along...it was like the great slaughter in silicon valley...we take the mouse and gui for granted but not only did it take away jobs, it also was a curve ball many inflexible older techies could not adjust to
change is never easy in the IT field and that is why it is rare to see anybody go from mathematician with vacuum tubes to green screen coder to gui to "whatever" the future holds
i also had a friend who had memorized hundreds of key combinations like ctrl-a and such and he only just learned to use the mouse two years ago...he took literally five years to learn how to use it with its two buttons...he could never remember, "was that right click, left click, double click, and where do i keep my fingers?"
i could go on with old man stories from the trenches of san jose, but i will stop NOW ;)
if you started with a mouse, it only takes a few weeks to learn how to interact with windows and modern computers
one family friend, a computer professor at stanford, never got used to gui and he still uses his trusty 286...he says he can't think when there is more than one color on the screen and he never got used to the mouse
kind of the way i feel like when i use "hex-pee" or i try to play a game console thingy like x-box with all those buttons...as a ten year old yanks the keypad/console from me at the computer store and memorizes the keys and buttons within minutes as it relates to that game being played
:p
True for many of us. For applications that use a lot of math functions, it makes a big difference. So, for others it does matter. They may be in the minority, but a very important group of users. In less than a year the picture will change, and that small group will be very pleased with the Mac. For now, there is nothing anyone can do about it.
those math functions are extremely complex and hard to do fast if we stay way behind the curve of the pc world
i was in this computer repair class where we had to do the math, some of the math that a processor did, so we could appreciate that little thing
in the old days of computing, way back when in the 1970s, many computing funtions had to be done by phd mathematicians and there were very few silicon "math co-processors"
early computer science college programs were thus a lot like math programs...it's so funny, actually sad, to see how many older, math literate techies were completely unable to relate when gui came along...it was like the great slaughter in silicon valley...we take the mouse and gui for granted but not only did it take away jobs, it also was a curve ball many inflexible older techies could not adjust to
change is never easy in the IT field and that is why it is rare to see anybody go from mathematician with vacuum tubes to green screen coder to gui to "whatever" the future holds
i also had a friend who had memorized hundreds of key combinations like ctrl-a and such and he only just learned to use the mouse two years ago...he took literally five years to learn how to use it with its two buttons...he could never remember, "was that right click, left click, double click, and where do i keep my fingers?"
i could go on with old man stories from the trenches of san jose, but i will stop NOW ;)
if you started with a mouse, it only takes a few weeks to learn how to interact with windows and modern computers
one family friend, a computer professor at stanford, never got used to gui and he still uses his trusty 286...he says he can't think when there is more than one color on the screen and he never got used to the mouse
kind of the way i feel like when i use "hex-pee" or i try to play a game console thingy like x-box with all those buttons...as a ten year old yanks the keypad/console from me at the computer store and memorizes the keys and buttons within minutes as it relates to that game being played
:p
edifyingGerbil
Apr 27, 02:31 PM
You can give a god any attributes you want.
lol...
Look, in philosophy (and by proxy theology) there is used in debate and arguments definite descriptions. Definite descriptions are used as shorthand to refer to complex ideas so that we do not need to descend into meta-linguistics and logical symbolism which is quite arcane.
Now with regards to the ontological argument for the existence of God, and the "Problem of Evil" and any other argument propounded by a Christian theologian trying to prove God's existence using reason, the definite description "God" is used as shorthand for:
There is an entity such that this entity possesses certain attributes which are defined in certain religious texts called the Bible.
The fact that the Judaeo-Christian God is really the chief of the Ugaritic pantheon doesn't matter because the Ugaritic god doesn't have his attributes listed in the Bible, unlike the Judaeo-Christian god.
You can't give the Judaeo-Christian god any attributes you want, otherwise we would have solved the problem of evil long ago. You can in your imagination give any being any attributes you want but its definite description will include "there is a fictional being such that..." etc.
I hope I'm not being condescending. Maybe you know about definite descriptions and I'm preaching to the converted...
lol...
Look, in philosophy (and by proxy theology) there is used in debate and arguments definite descriptions. Definite descriptions are used as shorthand to refer to complex ideas so that we do not need to descend into meta-linguistics and logical symbolism which is quite arcane.
Now with regards to the ontological argument for the existence of God, and the "Problem of Evil" and any other argument propounded by a Christian theologian trying to prove God's existence using reason, the definite description "God" is used as shorthand for:
There is an entity such that this entity possesses certain attributes which are defined in certain religious texts called the Bible.
The fact that the Judaeo-Christian God is really the chief of the Ugaritic pantheon doesn't matter because the Ugaritic god doesn't have his attributes listed in the Bible, unlike the Judaeo-Christian god.
You can't give the Judaeo-Christian god any attributes you want, otherwise we would have solved the problem of evil long ago. You can in your imagination give any being any attributes you want but its definite description will include "there is a fictional being such that..." etc.
I hope I'm not being condescending. Maybe you know about definite descriptions and I'm preaching to the converted...
AoWolf
Aug 29, 03:25 PM
To be honest I really don't care what green peace thinks. I wonder if you took all advancements that have benefited humanity made on macs versus all the work greenpeace has ever done who would come out on top. We definitely need to watch out for the environment but we need to do it logically not emotionally. Greenpeace is nothing but a group of eco-terriests in my opinion.
bpaluzzi
Apr 28, 08:43 AM
Exactly! Desktop shipments still outpace laptop shipments.
Miiiight want to check that out again. Laptops have been outselling desktops since 2008.
Miiiight want to check that out again. Laptops have been outselling desktops since 2008.
Aduntu
Apr 15, 09:49 AM
I'm not against the message of encouraging people to reach out for help in a time of need, or helping those under the stress of bullying to realize that it gets better. Though, I am curious why a commercial company is attaching itself to a particular community? If Apple participated in a video that supported a community of people believing that marriage should be between only a man and a woman, the LGBT community would be outraged. Why alienate customers that may have strong opinions on the subject, no matter which side they're on?
combatcolin
Oct 28, 10:57 AM
Bugger only 8 Cores.
Not swiping my Visa card till they get to 1024 Cores....
Not swiping my Visa card till they get to 1024 Cores....
Peace
Sep 12, 05:02 PM
Engadget has posted pics :
http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/12/apple-to-release-itv-video-streaming-box-in-2007/
http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/12/hands-on-with-the-apple-itv-prototype/
http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/12/apple-to-release-itv-video-streaming-box-in-2007/
http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/12/hands-on-with-the-apple-itv-prototype/
MacCoaster
Oct 12, 04:19 PM
javajedi: Well, well... I finally figured out GNUstep and ported your Cocoa program to it--works 100%. Funny thing it's slower than the Java one, but it might be the extra crap I put in there (menus, etc.). 10 seconds compared to 7 seconds with Java. But that's still faster than 70 seconds on a G4. I'll be making a pure C port if anyone hasn't.
theBB
Sep 12, 07:24 PM
Does this thing have an Ethernet port, and it apparently does. I'd rather not rely on wireless. Right now I have a VGA cable from my iMac to my TV, so I'd gain something by replacing it with a simple CAT5.
I'm a bit surprised not to see any USB or FW ports on there though. I was betting on being able to hook up an optional HDD.
It's got USB.
I'm a bit surprised not to see any USB or FW ports on there though. I was betting on being able to hook up an optional HDD.
It's got USB.
pdjudd
Oct 7, 04:57 PM
Have you actually READ the link you posted?
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
No comments:
Post a Comment