Huntn
Apr 25, 12:45 PM
Comma added, because my brain was starting to hurt. ;)
And I agree, but then 'power' is lost, and that just won't do, now will it? :rolleyes:
No not really especially when power is often held by those placing themselves in the position of interpreting what God thinks and wants...
I do think it was a bad call when God decided that strapping on explosives and blowing up the local market and it's customers was appropriate. ;)
And I agree, but then 'power' is lost, and that just won't do, now will it? :rolleyes:
No not really especially when power is often held by those placing themselves in the position of interpreting what God thinks and wants...
I do think it was a bad call when God decided that strapping on explosives and blowing up the local market and it's customers was appropriate. ;)
thatsallfolks
Apr 5, 09:40 PM
I'm was a complete Mac virgin when I switched a couple of months ago but some of the small things that still annoy me.
1. Pressing delete when you've selected a file in finder doesn't delete the file. You've gotta use the context menu or <gasp> actually drag it to the garbage.
2. It's kinda' weird that the menu bar shows at the top of the screen and not the window. When you have alot of windows open I sometimes go into the menu bar thinking it belongs to another program than what I intended.
3. There's no ".." button in finder(i.e. go one level up a directory structure)
4. Not having an actual uninstall program procedure kind of makes me paranoid.
I do love the magic mouse and obviously Macs look slicker than PCs so overall I guess I'm satisfied and I'm sure any reasonable person would be as well but from what I've seen of Windows 7 I would think most reasonable people would be happy with that too.
1. Pressing delete when you've selected a file in finder doesn't delete the file. You've gotta use the context menu or <gasp> actually drag it to the garbage.
2. It's kinda' weird that the menu bar shows at the top of the screen and not the window. When you have alot of windows open I sometimes go into the menu bar thinking it belongs to another program than what I intended.
3. There's no ".." button in finder(i.e. go one level up a directory structure)
4. Not having an actual uninstall program procedure kind of makes me paranoid.
I do love the magic mouse and obviously Macs look slicker than PCs so overall I guess I'm satisfied and I'm sure any reasonable person would be as well but from what I've seen of Windows 7 I would think most reasonable people would be happy with that too.
Chupa Chupa
Apr 13, 04:43 AM
My only concern at this point is every iMovie user now thinking they can be a pro editor with no training and very little cost. Even a 10 year old kid will be using FCP. This is going to affect the editing job market and make editors a dime a dozen. Sure talent still matters but it is going to be harder for companies to sift through 5000 demo reels trying to find that talent. Apple has pretty much turned editing into Wal-Mart.
Wow. I don't know if it's possible to be more condescending.
Wow. I don't know if it's possible to be more condescending.
Peterkro
Mar 13, 04:14 PM
really ?
i live in a country which isn't at war .. and hasn't since quite a few years.. and by years i mean decades
and the nuclear power plant we built was stopped before getting turned on by a popular vote (since then we have a constitutional law forbidding to build nuclear power plants...)
wow look at how i am suffering from the terrible consequences
I grew up in a country where even a right wing government won't entertain the idea of nuclear power,where one of it's major allies (the U.S.) are not allowed to bring naval vessels into territorial waters because they will not reveal if nuclear weapons/propulsion are involved.Which has just suffered a major earthquake and as far as I know is the only country that is a nuclear free zone.To New Zealanders this policy is totally sacrosanct.Guess what they are doing fine.
(by the way 70% of electricity production is from renewables)
i live in a country which isn't at war .. and hasn't since quite a few years.. and by years i mean decades
and the nuclear power plant we built was stopped before getting turned on by a popular vote (since then we have a constitutional law forbidding to build nuclear power plants...)
wow look at how i am suffering from the terrible consequences
I grew up in a country where even a right wing government won't entertain the idea of nuclear power,where one of it's major allies (the U.S.) are not allowed to bring naval vessels into territorial waters because they will not reveal if nuclear weapons/propulsion are involved.Which has just suffered a major earthquake and as far as I know is the only country that is a nuclear free zone.To New Zealanders this policy is totally sacrosanct.Guess what they are doing fine.
(by the way 70% of electricity production is from renewables)
archipellago
May 2, 04:47 PM
Really? Find a source that makes the statements you suggest above that is unbiased. By unbiased, I mean a source that doesn't sell vulnerabilities to ZDI which then produces and markets specific hardware security appliances to generate revenue.
Hooking the APIs to log protected passwords in Mac OS X requires privilege escalation.
unbiased as opposed to a Mac site.... yeah right!
Mac users tend to be a better target for old fashioned phishing/vishing because...well, 'nothing bad happens on a Mac..' right?
Hooking the APIs to log protected passwords in Mac OS X requires privilege escalation.
unbiased as opposed to a Mac site.... yeah right!
Mac users tend to be a better target for old fashioned phishing/vishing because...well, 'nothing bad happens on a Mac..' right?
wpwj40e
Sep 12, 05:52 PM
ABout the only real use I saw for thi sdevice was for the stuff Ihave recorded form elgato 500. Sinc eit dumps it into my itunes library - theoretically I should be able to access it. However, 5 gig files streaming are simply not pretty - and I do not want 640 * 480 on my HDTV.
WHile I "get" the direction of this product - I am not sure where its marketing position is at. Most can easily buy an upconverting DVD player for around $50-60 - connect to their TV and buy tons of movies (and own them) at 10-15.
Much higher resolution - no streaming issues...in fact for the average user this is a MUCH easier solution than downloading a movie - figuring out how to enable their various "apple" wireless devices to talk, connecting this box to the TV and dealing with any streaming hiccups....And they also get a much higher resolution - filling up their whole widescreen. Most users already complain about the black bars across the top and bottom - can you hear it when the entire "dvd download" is letterboxed?
I really wanted to like today's announcmeents - and now am just confused.
WHile I "get" the direction of this product - I am not sure where its marketing position is at. Most can easily buy an upconverting DVD player for around $50-60 - connect to their TV and buy tons of movies (and own them) at 10-15.
Much higher resolution - no streaming issues...in fact for the average user this is a MUCH easier solution than downloading a movie - figuring out how to enable their various "apple" wireless devices to talk, connecting this box to the TV and dealing with any streaming hiccups....And they also get a much higher resolution - filling up their whole widescreen. Most users already complain about the black bars across the top and bottom - can you hear it when the entire "dvd download" is letterboxed?
I really wanted to like today's announcmeents - and now am just confused.
MadGoat
Apr 24, 02:17 PM
actually it is not the fear of Death ... many religious people do not worry when their time is done ... for them "the afterlife" trumps everything
You just validated the original point. the fear of death is why people embrace religion to give them hope of an afterlife and immortality so that they don't have to be afraid.
Myself, I'm not afraid of dying, it's something I cannot stop. I'm just afraid of dying too soon.
You just validated the original point. the fear of death is why people embrace religion to give them hope of an afterlife and immortality so that they don't have to be afraid.
Myself, I'm not afraid of dying, it's something I cannot stop. I'm just afraid of dying too soon.
Evangelion
Jul 12, 06:47 AM
Way, costs about $1 for Apple to fix it. Great!
So what?
You cannot put a price tag for components such as CPU and GPU that get updated with every single hardware revision. Yes, in time they become more capable with every revision, but the relative price of such components does not change that much.
So you are saying that dual-core Core Due CPU costs Apple about as much as the G4 did? back when Mini had G4, the CPU was bottom of the barrel, with prices to match. The Core Duo (or solo for that matter) are actually very good CPU's and they do cost more than the G4 did. SO-DIMM is also more expenside than regural DDR-SDRAM is.
The built-in wireless on the other hand is something of extra value; however, Apple cuts its own costs of eliminating an option, so it should not cost the customer that much extra.
Why not? The customer receives more, why shouldn't he pay more for it? "because it doesn't cost that much more to the company!" Well boo-hoo! I bet that a car with 2-liter engine doesn't REALLY cost that much more to make than similar car with 1.6-liter engine, yet we have to pay more for the bigger engine. By your logic they should cost the same?
And how about the remote?
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper. Didn't your mother teach you that?
OK, compare the prices then. You will see that you could buy a Mac Mini for $599 back then. And guess what? You can buy a Mac Mini for $599 even today! True, you can't get one for $499, but at this point I feel compelled to ask: So what? Since when did Macs become the rock-bottom computers with prices to match?
Hell, I have been watching some old Stevenotes recently. And I remember him introducing PowerMacs with prices starting at $1499. Why aren't we whining because PowerMacs are more expensive today?
So what?
You cannot put a price tag for components such as CPU and GPU that get updated with every single hardware revision. Yes, in time they become more capable with every revision, but the relative price of such components does not change that much.
So you are saying that dual-core Core Due CPU costs Apple about as much as the G4 did? back when Mini had G4, the CPU was bottom of the barrel, with prices to match. The Core Duo (or solo for that matter) are actually very good CPU's and they do cost more than the G4 did. SO-DIMM is also more expenside than regural DDR-SDRAM is.
The built-in wireless on the other hand is something of extra value; however, Apple cuts its own costs of eliminating an option, so it should not cost the customer that much extra.
Why not? The customer receives more, why shouldn't he pay more for it? "because it doesn't cost that much more to the company!" Well boo-hoo! I bet that a car with 2-liter engine doesn't REALLY cost that much more to make than similar car with 1.6-liter engine, yet we have to pay more for the bigger engine. By your logic they should cost the same?
And how about the remote?
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper. Didn't your mother teach you that?
OK, compare the prices then. You will see that you could buy a Mac Mini for $599 back then. And guess what? You can buy a Mac Mini for $599 even today! True, you can't get one for $499, but at this point I feel compelled to ask: So what? Since when did Macs become the rock-bottom computers with prices to match?
Hell, I have been watching some old Stevenotes recently. And I remember him introducing PowerMacs with prices starting at $1499. Why aren't we whining because PowerMacs are more expensive today?
flopticalcube
Apr 25, 10:47 AM
Sense tells me that the truth value of God's existence is unknowable. However, in my opinion, it's not just unknowable but also totally irrelevant for how we should live. In other words, it is not important to know if there is a God or not. Is that closer to agnosticism or to atheism (if we separate these two notions completely)?
Absolutely correct. It is irrelevant because it is unknowable so let's not pretend or imagine or try to know the unknowable. Let's live our lives in peace.
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
Absolutely correct. It is irrelevant because it is unknowable so let's not pretend or imagine or try to know the unknowable. Let's live our lives in peace.
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
AidenShaw
Sep 24, 10:45 PM
The use of the hard drive is most likely for cache to buffer the stream on an unstable 80211 connection.
Considering all the posts to this point, I'm inclined to believe that the "hard drive" might just be some flash memory.
Iger is not a super-geek - he could easily have said "hard drive" to mean some non-volatile memory.
In other words, the iTV is not a media hub - but it is able to do some buffering of the content.
Considering all the posts to this point, I'm inclined to believe that the "hard drive" might just be some flash memory.
Iger is not a super-geek - he could easily have said "hard drive" to mean some non-volatile memory.
In other words, the iTV is not a media hub - but it is able to do some buffering of the content.
franswa za
Apr 9, 02:38 AM
Apple will buy Nintendo eventually.
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
+1
and the ipipi
:D
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
+1
and the ipipi
:D
After G
Sep 12, 08:05 PM
I don't watch TV - the market for it is not me ... TV these days is too full of crap. No DVR because I don't want to save crap.
My watching model is: I watch it once, I know what happened, I don't care for keeping it. Because of this, I don't buy DVDs. I don't want to pay $20 for a watch-once movie. And most of the $5-11 deals aren't. The theater is a better offer for me, but the environment sucked a long time ago, and still does.
Hmm ... I find myself doing more with the computer ... and less everywhere else. Sounds like I fit right in to the iTV demographic, that "digital hub" thing.
My watching model is: I watch it once, I know what happened, I don't care for keeping it. Because of this, I don't buy DVDs. I don't want to pay $20 for a watch-once movie. And most of the $5-11 deals aren't. The theater is a better offer for me, but the environment sucked a long time ago, and still does.
Hmm ... I find myself doing more with the computer ... and less everywhere else. Sounds like I fit right in to the iTV demographic, that "digital hub" thing.
goobot
May 5, 05:38 PM
and obviously have either never made any calls or do not live in a major metropolitan city like NY.
i live in one of att's top 3 markets and havent dropped a call for a year. and both me and my dad (who also doesnt drop calls) are on the phone a lot.
for all the people saying they have a bad signal just in your house its your own fault. not att's.
also to this chart thing i bet most of the people on that chart are att haters just cause the iphone is att only. FYI dont get a phone if its service doesnt work near you. you have no right to complain if there are other carriers to choice.
i live in one of att's top 3 markets and havent dropped a call for a year. and both me and my dad (who also doesnt drop calls) are on the phone a lot.
for all the people saying they have a bad signal just in your house its your own fault. not att's.
also to this chart thing i bet most of the people on that chart are att haters just cause the iphone is att only. FYI dont get a phone if its service doesnt work near you. you have no right to complain if there are other carriers to choice.
manhattanboy
May 5, 05:30 PM
I have had ATT for almost three years now - and I haven't had one dropped call.
and obviously have either never made any calls or do not live in a major metropolitan city like NY.
and obviously have either never made any calls or do not live in a major metropolitan city like NY.
dumb terminal
May 6, 02:42 AM
I challenge you to walk down the west side, anywhere... but take 9th avenue from say... the 57th St to the mid 30's. Just get in a cab. Make a phone call in regular traffic. I'd be willing to wager that at least 75% of the time you drop a call, once, if not twice during that trip. It happens to me nearly every day.
Heck, I work in an office in the Flatiron District, and on my work iPhone, it is literally an act of god if your call lasts longer than two minutes. I get slightly better times at home in Brooklyn (Prospect Heights), but I'm averaging about 5-6 dropped calls during the day. It's frustrating (and embarrassing at the same time) when I lose a call with a client, and after calling them back, they ask "Are you on AT&T?" And not to mention the absolutely atrocious data speeds.
Strangely, my (personal) Verizon Blackberry has never had a problem anywhere in NYC. Hmm :rolleyes:
Heck, I work in an office in the Flatiron District, and on my work iPhone, it is literally an act of god if your call lasts longer than two minutes. I get slightly better times at home in Brooklyn (Prospect Heights), but I'm averaging about 5-6 dropped calls during the day. It's frustrating (and embarrassing at the same time) when I lose a call with a client, and after calling them back, they ask "Are you on AT&T?" And not to mention the absolutely atrocious data speeds.
Strangely, my (personal) Verizon Blackberry has never had a problem anywhere in NYC. Hmm :rolleyes:
weitzner
Sep 20, 01:42 PM
I think it's pretty obvious that iTV will NOT have DVR functionality- The iTunes store is a competitor to DVR. This thing is a means of connecting your computer (iTunes) to your TV- not about connecting your TV to your computer. It's a completely different take on watch-your-show-whenever-you-feel-like-it mentality.
manic
Jul 12, 09:05 AM
Okay, people are hyped about the 4 core xeon. But arent we overlooking something here? Arent server processors designed to do substantially different work than desktops? Whats the point in fitting a >1000 dollar processor into a machine that runs photoshop and see it slug away? Im not saying thats the case, but I think its a relevant point and would like to know if anyone knows the answer. If its slower at desktop tasks, than we will be seeing conroes in mac pros. If its faster, then theres a pretty good chance it will fit the highest end one.
now, unless the other chap who said "anything other than woodcrest would be absolutely insulting" knows wc is insanely faster at desktop tasks, I think hes just building some negative hype. Conroes are supposed to outperform by a wide margin everything weve seen so far. Its by no means insulting
now, unless the other chap who said "anything other than woodcrest would be absolutely insulting" knows wc is insanely faster at desktop tasks, I think hes just building some negative hype. Conroes are supposed to outperform by a wide margin everything weve seen so far. Its by no means insulting
Chwisch87
Jun 7, 09:42 PM
what is the number one thing people actually use ... its the phone.
atnt here in ATL has gotten noticeably worse over the past month. It was already bad. This puts serious damper on my staying with atnt and switching over to verizon with android.
atnt here in ATL has gotten noticeably worse over the past month. It was already bad. This puts serious damper on my staying with atnt and switching over to verizon with android.
eric_n_dfw
Mar 19, 06:21 PM
Answering my own question, it appears (from some quick Google searches) that WINE doesn't currently like the custom CD drivers that iTunes for Windows installs, but the comercial product "CrossOffice" which is a supported WINE port that is tuned for MS Office and other popular Win32 apps, has anounced iTunes support: http://www.codeweavers.com/about/general/press/?id=20041116;cw=3b02a63d1cda46fdf5bb968a31b557c4
It's not free, but it is a legal option and at $40 it's not to bad.
It's not free, but it is a legal option and at $40 it's not to bad.
skunk
Apr 24, 10:50 AM
I'm just entertaining the notion of agnosticism as a kind of nod to the great debt we owe Judaism and Christianity. If it wasn't for those two faiths which allowed for reformations (such a thing would be impossible under, say, Islam) then secular Western democracies would be vastly different.What do you mean by "allowed for"? Do you mean that they could have slaughtered more people in the wars of religion? As for Islam, we probably would not have had a Renaissance without Islam.
If Europe had succumbed to the advance of Islam, if Vienna had fallen in the 17th century things likely would be very different today. Europe would have produced as many Nobel Prize winners as the entire Islamic WorldWe would all be speaking German I expect.
If Europe had succumbed to the advance of Islam, if Vienna had fallen in the 17th century things likely would be very different today. Europe would have produced as many Nobel Prize winners as the entire Islamic WorldWe would all be speaking German I expect.
awmazz
Mar 14, 11:34 AM
Am I hearing the expert om TV right? He's saying the seawater being pumped in is just *around* the core container to stop it from overheating and melting. It's not actually *into* the core to cool it down.
So basically these fire engines are just pumping water onto the outside of a red hot oven to keep it from melting while the oven still burns brightly.
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Edit - The NYT article appears to contradict this, saying the water is being pumped in to cover the rods:
The Kyodo news agency reported that the damaged fuel rods at the third reactor had been temporarily exposed, increasing the risk of overheating. Sea water was being channeled into the reactor to cover the rods, Kyodo reported.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
The key phrase is 'passed through'. So sailing through it. How long did that take, assume 10 minutes? So a month's exposure in just 10 minutes. If they remained stationary for a full day that equates to how many future sailors' babies born with no legs or whatnot? (See there? I'm not talking about deaths.) Quick arithmetic = 6 months backrgound radiation per hour = lookie there a nice divisible number, 12 years worth per day.
So living in that house of yours in your example. Extrapolate that out. 12 years of background exposure per day for a whole year = 4,380 YEARS worth of normal background exposure per annum. How many deformed babies is that *not* to worry about in future years? Seriously, are you telling us all here that you would have your pregnant wife remain exposed to this sort of 'flying on a plane' level of radiation? That you would be happy to have your pregnant wife (if she was) remain within 100 kilomtres of Fukishima for any length of time based on current circumstances?
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is.
So basically these fire engines are just pumping water onto the outside of a red hot oven to keep it from melting while the oven still burns brightly.
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Edit - The NYT article appears to contradict this, saying the water is being pumped in to cover the rods:
The Kyodo news agency reported that the damaged fuel rods at the third reactor had been temporarily exposed, increasing the risk of overheating. Sea water was being channeled into the reactor to cover the rods, Kyodo reported.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
The key phrase is 'passed through'. So sailing through it. How long did that take, assume 10 minutes? So a month's exposure in just 10 minutes. If they remained stationary for a full day that equates to how many future sailors' babies born with no legs or whatnot? (See there? I'm not talking about deaths.) Quick arithmetic = 6 months backrgound radiation per hour = lookie there a nice divisible number, 12 years worth per day.
So living in that house of yours in your example. Extrapolate that out. 12 years of background exposure per day for a whole year = 4,380 YEARS worth of normal background exposure per annum. How many deformed babies is that *not* to worry about in future years? Seriously, are you telling us all here that you would have your pregnant wife remain exposed to this sort of 'flying on a plane' level of radiation? That you would be happy to have your pregnant wife (if she was) remain within 100 kilomtres of Fukishima for any length of time based on current circumstances?
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is.
acslater017
Apr 15, 10:54 AM
encourage[/I] people to be gay/lesbian/whatever. At the end of the day that's basically the underlying message in all these videos: "Go ahead, by gay. It's perfectly fine
...It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle.
I don't think anyone's saying "go for it!". The basic ideas I got from the video were:
-you're not alone if you're suffering
-life gets better, so stick around
-find help
I didn't really pick up on anyone saying, "You should be homosexual" or anything like that...
...It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle.
I don't think anyone's saying "go for it!". The basic ideas I got from the video were:
-you're not alone if you're suffering
-life gets better, so stick around
-find help
I didn't really pick up on anyone saying, "You should be homosexual" or anything like that...
CoryTV
Apr 12, 10:43 PM
I think you missed the color correction on ingest, non-destructive color correction, and one-click color correction feature announcements. Color is not dead, it is just no longer a separate app. .
Have you ever even used color? I mean really USED IT? This is not what the program is for. It's not about "fixing your shots" it's about GRADING. This is a souped up version of the existing color correction, along with an autocorrect feature like Avid has had for quite a while (though probably better than that, I'm sure)
Color lets you make absurdly complex adjustments to a scene like a hollywood colorist-- in realtime-- 16 effective secondaries.. This has nothing like that.
Color was a $25,000 app that Apple bought, smacked their logo on it and gave it away essentially for free. Which was great at the time, but the hope was that they'd take that technology and integrate it. What they (and you described) is nothing like what Color does.
Have you ever even used color? I mean really USED IT? This is not what the program is for. It's not about "fixing your shots" it's about GRADING. This is a souped up version of the existing color correction, along with an autocorrect feature like Avid has had for quite a while (though probably better than that, I'm sure)
Color lets you make absurdly complex adjustments to a scene like a hollywood colorist-- in realtime-- 16 effective secondaries.. This has nothing like that.
Color was a $25,000 app that Apple bought, smacked their logo on it and gave it away essentially for free. Which was great at the time, but the hope was that they'd take that technology and integrate it. What they (and you described) is nothing like what Color does.
UnixMac
Oct 8, 05:04 PM
We're on the same sheet of music, Java...
I for one don't know a thing about using XP/2000 on a desktop, as I have no desire to learn it. I was a windows man from the days of 3.1 thru 98SE, and then I had to go back to Apple, having left them with my IBM PCXT in 1982. I like the IIe, but IBM seemed to be more serious about software at the time. I missed the whole Mac thing, and only joined in with my lastest rig.
I for one don't know a thing about using XP/2000 on a desktop, as I have no desire to learn it. I was a windows man from the days of 3.1 thru 98SE, and then I had to go back to Apple, having left them with my IBM PCXT in 1982. I like the IIe, but IBM seemed to be more serious about software at the time. I missed the whole Mac thing, and only joined in with my lastest rig.
Post Title → long hair styles for black women 2011
