ugahairydawgs
Mar 18, 08:03 AM
How exactly are they able to tell if someone is tethering or not?
Virtualball
Apr 15, 10:06 AM
A lot of you guys are just ridiculous. This initiative is for LGBT support, this has nothing to do with whatever other subset of bullying you support. There are no ends to support groups for people who are overweight or a different race, but you don't see anyone slamming at the doors of the NAACP asking why lesbians aren't allowed in. As noted, being gay isn't the same thing as being fat. While both are terrible for teenage self-esteem, there's a key difference. When people come out, they run the risk of losing friends or even families. I've heard so many sad stories of kids being kicked out of their home for being homosexuals whereas overweight kids deal with people at school calling them fat. I'm not belittling their problems, I'm just saying that gays have it much worse than a lot of people think.
On another note, that was a very touching and nice video. +1 for the It Gets Better campaign!
On another note, that was a very touching and nice video. +1 for the It Gets Better campaign!
emotion
Sep 21, 01:36 PM
Hey at least you guys had U2 before we did.:)
Jeez, and that's a good thing??!
Jeez, and that's a good thing??!
Lord Blackadder
Mar 14, 04:29 PM
The fact remains that most of America's energy problems are caused by conspicuous consumption.
It's a global problem, though the US is the worst offender. Dealing with the energy crisis must be accomplished by attaking the problem from both ends - renewable sources at one end and lower per capita energy consumption at the other.
The solution does indeed need to be multi-tiered and intelligently applied. I've heard that the Japanese Nuclear plants were built to survive a strong earthquake or a tsunami, but not both. Well what often occurs when you get a strong earthquake offshore? That's right, a tsunami! Brilliant planning!
The current situation certainly exposes flaws in the design of the Japanese nuclear plants. To be fair, the severy of the disaster was extreme, but this is precisely the kind of worst-case scenario designers should have envisioned when they designed the plant. Even now we might see a partial meltdown in the Fukushima plant, though it appears that they've partially restored function to the cooling system. We should all be thankful that this didn't happen in a place where one of those Soviet RBMK reactors is still in operation - that would almost certainly have resulted in a full meltdown.
As for solar, it should be mandatory on new construction in areas such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas. It won't solve our energy needs but it will lessen them. Use the appropriate alternative technology where it will do the most good. Don't try to ship solar generated electricity across the country, just try to take advantage of it in localities that typically experience a number of sunny days.
Solar panels are one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source), and that is always going to cause a lot of resistance. For a homeowner, it's often a break-even proposition if conditions are favorable (but not necessarily ideal), and if the installation is thought out carefully. Wind power is considerably cheaper than solar and functions in places with little sunlight, so it is an important option to consider. In fact, wind power can be even cheaper than "clean coal" plants.
Still, as you say, different solutions work in different places. Reducing our dependance on non-renewable energy sources must involve every means at our disposal, and they must be implemented to maximum effect wherever the conditions are favorable. Solar enregy is insufficient on its own, as are all the other renewable sources of energy. Only a combination of wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and other sources can begin to generate enough energy to replace non-renewable sources.
And as skunk mentioned above, we need to find ways to reduce consumption on top of all that.
It's a global problem, though the US is the worst offender. Dealing with the energy crisis must be accomplished by attaking the problem from both ends - renewable sources at one end and lower per capita energy consumption at the other.
The solution does indeed need to be multi-tiered and intelligently applied. I've heard that the Japanese Nuclear plants were built to survive a strong earthquake or a tsunami, but not both. Well what often occurs when you get a strong earthquake offshore? That's right, a tsunami! Brilliant planning!
The current situation certainly exposes flaws in the design of the Japanese nuclear plants. To be fair, the severy of the disaster was extreme, but this is precisely the kind of worst-case scenario designers should have envisioned when they designed the plant. Even now we might see a partial meltdown in the Fukushima plant, though it appears that they've partially restored function to the cooling system. We should all be thankful that this didn't happen in a place where one of those Soviet RBMK reactors is still in operation - that would almost certainly have resulted in a full meltdown.
As for solar, it should be mandatory on new construction in areas such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas. It won't solve our energy needs but it will lessen them. Use the appropriate alternative technology where it will do the most good. Don't try to ship solar generated electricity across the country, just try to take advantage of it in localities that typically experience a number of sunny days.
Solar panels are one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source), and that is always going to cause a lot of resistance. For a homeowner, it's often a break-even proposition if conditions are favorable (but not necessarily ideal), and if the installation is thought out carefully. Wind power is considerably cheaper than solar and functions in places with little sunlight, so it is an important option to consider. In fact, wind power can be even cheaper than "clean coal" plants.
Still, as you say, different solutions work in different places. Reducing our dependance on non-renewable energy sources must involve every means at our disposal, and they must be implemented to maximum effect wherever the conditions are favorable. Solar enregy is insufficient on its own, as are all the other renewable sources of energy. Only a combination of wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and other sources can begin to generate enough energy to replace non-renewable sources.
And as skunk mentioned above, we need to find ways to reduce consumption on top of all that.
cublah
Mar 18, 09:26 AM
I use HandyLight to tether, but only occasionally. I wonder if they can detect that. I don't know what method the jailbreak way uses.
They can detect in a lot of way, for instance since you can't use flash on an iphone or iPad, if they see lots of flash stuff they you are probably tethering, also certain popular sites detect mobile devices and send the mobile version of the site if you are loading the full versions of those sites they could detect tethering, these are only a couple of simple things but there are plenty more, so I don't think this is going to be limited to the latest iOS.
Just my thought on the matter.
They can detect in a lot of way, for instance since you can't use flash on an iphone or iPad, if they see lots of flash stuff they you are probably tethering, also certain popular sites detect mobile devices and send the mobile version of the site if you are loading the full versions of those sites they could detect tethering, these are only a couple of simple things but there are plenty more, so I don't think this is going to be limited to the latest iOS.
Just my thought on the matter.
Iscariot
Mar 25, 06:48 PM
This coming from a person who just very selectively quoted parts of my statement. I guess I shall assume the other 2.5 points I made were true?
The irony is so thick I might choke.
I'll make it a point to better prioritize my time around your personal attacks; I'd hate for you to hurt yourself on that mouthful of faux-indignation.
@ijh: don't you spend more time here than anybody...?
The irony is so thick I might choke.
I'll make it a point to better prioritize my time around your personal attacks; I'd hate for you to hurt yourself on that mouthful of faux-indignation.
@ijh: don't you spend more time here than anybody...?
Clive At Five
Aug 29, 12:59 PM
Yeah, cause you just HAVE to hunt whales and eat whalemeat in Norway in order to survive, such a poor country with poor people. How dare Greenpeace oppose your ancient way of life?
Have you read what you just wrote? Who said anything about hunting whales? Eating whale meat? Or being poor?
No one.
Conclusion? You're bigoted.
There's no denying that Greenpeace is further towards "Extremist" than towards "Moderate." That's the jist of what he's saying, and he's right.
-Clive
Have you read what you just wrote? Who said anything about hunting whales? Eating whale meat? Or being poor?
No one.
Conclusion? You're bigoted.
There's no denying that Greenpeace is further towards "Extremist" than towards "Moderate." That's the jist of what he's saying, and he's right.
-Clive
michaellinehan
Oct 7, 02:40 PM
"it expects Android to surpass Apple's iPhone to claim the number two spot behind Symbian OS with 14.5% of the global smart phone market"
Simplistic example --- If one company has 95% of the market with a free phone and another company has 5% of the market with a $500 phone, who's better off?
Other articles go on and on about Microsoft's massively greater "market share". But with maybe tens times more market share than Apple, MS's market capitalization (worth) is only about 1.4 times as much as Apple.
Market share, as a bare number, is meaningless.
Simplistic example --- If one company has 95% of the market with a free phone and another company has 5% of the market with a $500 phone, who's better off?
Other articles go on and on about Microsoft's massively greater "market share". But with maybe tens times more market share than Apple, MS's market capitalization (worth) is only about 1.4 times as much as Apple.
Market share, as a bare number, is meaningless.
joemama
Sep 20, 09:21 PM
Is that legal? If it's not - even if it's blurry - Apple won't do it.
-Clive
Umm, it's called a VCR. Do you remember when that was considered illegal when it first came out? Or the cassette tape?
Secondly, if Apple allows you to do that, then you wouldn't buy content from the iTS. That's not what Apple wants.
-Clive
We all know that is Apple's business model right now. What everyone is saying is it is not going to work for the average Joe-American family.
Think about who pays the bills right now and imagine this scenario:
Child:"Hey, dad, can I buy that last 3 episodes of Lost on Itunes?"
Dad:"You mean the same ones that were on the last 3 weeks?..for free?!?"
Child:"Yes, I want to put them on my iPod."
Dad:"The same ones that are already on our DVR that I pay $10 extra a month to have? I think not, my child."
-Clive
Umm, it's called a VCR. Do you remember when that was considered illegal when it first came out? Or the cassette tape?
Secondly, if Apple allows you to do that, then you wouldn't buy content from the iTS. That's not what Apple wants.
-Clive
We all know that is Apple's business model right now. What everyone is saying is it is not going to work for the average Joe-American family.
Think about who pays the bills right now and imagine this scenario:
Child:"Hey, dad, can I buy that last 3 episodes of Lost on Itunes?"
Dad:"You mean the same ones that were on the last 3 weeks?..for free?!?"
Child:"Yes, I want to put them on my iPod."
Dad:"The same ones that are already on our DVR that I pay $10 extra a month to have? I think not, my child."
Lucky736
Apr 15, 09:32 AM
I have a couple problems with this approach. There's so much attention brought to this issue of specifically gay bullying that it's hard to see this outside of the framework of identity politics.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Man, being a fat kid in high school. That was rough. There were a number of cool, popular gay guys in my school. I'm sure they took some crap from some people, but oh how I would have rather been one of them! But hey, I'm still here, I'm still alive.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
Because it isn't cool to support fat kids that are being bullied, just if you live an alternative lifestyle. That's the American way, pick out a tiny sect of society and lift it up on a mantle to bitch about while ignoring the bigger issue.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Man, being a fat kid in high school. That was rough. There were a number of cool, popular gay guys in my school. I'm sure they took some crap from some people, but oh how I would have rather been one of them! But hey, I'm still here, I'm still alive.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
Because it isn't cool to support fat kids that are being bullied, just if you live an alternative lifestyle. That's the American way, pick out a tiny sect of society and lift it up on a mantle to bitch about while ignoring the bigger issue.
*LTD*
Apr 28, 08:16 AM
I remember this happened during the pokemon phenomenon. And Charlie Sheen's one man show keeps selling out too. What's your point?
The point is, it's Apple. It's where the entire market is headed. It's what got RIM, Samsung, Motorola, Microsoft, and other major players all worked up.
This isn't pokemon or some drug-addled actor.
It's what used to be a minor subset of the industry that is now breaking out and expanding rapidly. For one, it's mobile. The mobile market is massive and is experiencing nothing but growth. These tablet and pad devices are the next step in mobile computing, to the degree that they will supersede laptops and notebooks.
The point is, it's Apple. It's where the entire market is headed. It's what got RIM, Samsung, Motorola, Microsoft, and other major players all worked up.
This isn't pokemon or some drug-addled actor.
It's what used to be a minor subset of the industry that is now breaking out and expanding rapidly. For one, it's mobile. The mobile market is massive and is experiencing nothing but growth. These tablet and pad devices are the next step in mobile computing, to the degree that they will supersede laptops and notebooks.
firewood
Apr 28, 06:20 PM
I want it to be like a PC, a Mac or a Laptop.
Why should Apple care what you want it to be like when they know what more people actually buy? More people purchased iPads last quarter than MacBooks or iMacs. And reports are the most of those iPad were used for exactly the same kinds of things that most PCs are actually used for.
Ya know, mainframe and minicomputer companies used to call personal computers toys, not real computers. How can it be a real computer without a punched card reader and a line printer?
The vast majority of those mainframe and minicomputer companies no longer exist.
Why should Apple care what you want it to be like when they know what more people actually buy? More people purchased iPads last quarter than MacBooks or iMacs. And reports are the most of those iPad were used for exactly the same kinds of things that most PCs are actually used for.
Ya know, mainframe and minicomputer companies used to call personal computers toys, not real computers. How can it be a real computer without a punched card reader and a line printer?
The vast majority of those mainframe and minicomputer companies no longer exist.
Consultant
Apr 11, 11:17 AM
I miss wasting most of my time waiting for windows to start up / shut down / update / virus scan / defrag / pop up warnings / etc. :rolleyes:
pirateRACE
Apr 13, 09:04 AM
As a FC editor I'm excited. I can't wait to see what is in store for the rest of the suite.
If it's not your cup of tea, then keep rocking your current version. Amazing films, TV and web material has been made with it.
If it's not your cup of tea, then keep rocking your current version. Amazing films, TV and web material has been made with it.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:38 AM
I see lots of opinion here, but not a lot of facts. While there are some retro packs, where is a collection of 25 games � less than a year old � for the Nintendo DS?
Here's more like reality...
Bookworm... $20 on the Nintendo DS, but 99�-$2.99 on iPhone.
Before you point out the mote in our eyes, remove the plank from your own. What is the claim that Nintendo will go the way of Blockbuster other than opinion?
The plethora of mini-game based Wii games is a fact. The fact that those specific titles have not been ported to iOS (although I suspect that if I looked I'd find facsimiles of all languishing as failed $.99 games) does not invalidate the point.
Here's more like reality...
Bookworm... $20 on the Nintendo DS, but 99�-$2.99 on iPhone.
Before you point out the mote in our eyes, remove the plank from your own. What is the claim that Nintendo will go the way of Blockbuster other than opinion?
The plethora of mini-game based Wii games is a fact. The fact that those specific titles have not been ported to iOS (although I suspect that if I looked I'd find facsimiles of all languishing as failed $.99 games) does not invalidate the point.
Mooey
Apr 9, 03:33 AM
Apple will buy Nintendo eventually.
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
for Nintendo.
Nintendo.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
for Nintendo.
Nintendo.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
MacMyDay
Sep 20, 01:06 AM
I know of at least one company (http://www.itv.com/) in the UK who won't be too happy if they keep that name.
ender land
Apr 23, 10:11 PM
I'm not sure I understand the point in the first part of your post so I'll have to skip that for now. Maybe you can phrase it a different way to help me out. Anyway, the whole "moral" issue has been raised and argued before. In my mind, there are many reasons why, logically, atheists are, by far, more moral then religious people. I'll just throw one out at you: your statement of someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of morals to abide by isn't something I can agree with for many reasons. One, why does one have to have a religious book to have a standard of morals. Atheists can know right and wrong and make laws based on common sense morals. We don't need some made up god to tell us what is right and wrong. Secondly, have you read some of the "morals" in the holy books. If so, and you still follow these rules, you have very low standards for what good morals should be. One needs to look no further then the section on how to treat your slaves in the bible to see this fact!
Ugh, so much ignorance (hopefully unintentional), I don't know where to start...
If you are theistic, clearly it would make sense to base morality off what your God believes. Not doing so would be the equivalent of an atheist not agreeing with the scientific method.
Everything you say is hinged upon the belief religions are all wrong. If this is in fact true, I suppose you having this belief is true. Though you could also debate this back and forth, IF religion is all wrong, any religious morals are therefore created by those who practiced/invented the religion, which means there are far more viewpoints having gone into the creation of such morals.
Thirdly, it doesn't even matter whether the above is true with respect to what you said, even if religion is 100% made up, people who are religious (I'll pick on GWB again since he was by far more practicing Christian than Obama) are still basing their beliefs on something which is written down. This makes them more trustworthy, or perhaps a better word would be predictable. It is unlikely that someone like GWB will suddenly ever go "you know what, I think you're right, it's totally ok to allow abortion" because his beliefs are based on something which will not change. On the other hand, a politician who is completely atheistic has no such 'check' or 'reference' which means you have no idea that their position will not change.
"Common sense morals?" lol! There are so many examples of morals not being "common sense" both inside and outside theistic cultures. These "common sense" morals are only common sense because you personally believe in them, at the current time, given your set of circumstances. It is entirely possible they drastically change over time. A great example is the one you pointed out, slavery. Plenty of people thought it was "common sense" to allow slavery. What changed? Did people suddenly get "more common sense?" It seems likely to me that something like abortion is likely to eventually become a "common sense to outlaw" thing, while gay marriage will become a "wtf does the government care" common sense thing; neither of these is the current state in the United States.
Not to mention, common sense morals more or less is exactly what I am referring to when saying societal morals. The "this is morality as we see it, duh!" type of morality.
Regarding your final point, I am almost positive I have read more of the Bible and understand what it is saying better than you. I am not going to debate a book you seemingly do not know with you, so I will offer this: there is a difference between Old Testament law and the New Testament in terms of how we, ie not Jews living more than 2300 years ago, should interpret them in our daily lives. Not to mention, much of the Old Testament was written to a specific group of people at a specific time (that was a long time ago), which even if New Testament did not "free" us from Old Testament law, that slavery was much different at the time in practice and implementation (see Leviticus 25). Plus if you do want to see how to treat slaves from a Biblical standpoint, in light of Christ, read the book of Philemon in the New Testament, which specifically is written to a slaveowner from Paul.
Ugh, so much ignorance (hopefully unintentional), I don't know where to start...
If you are theistic, clearly it would make sense to base morality off what your God believes. Not doing so would be the equivalent of an atheist not agreeing with the scientific method.
Everything you say is hinged upon the belief religions are all wrong. If this is in fact true, I suppose you having this belief is true. Though you could also debate this back and forth, IF religion is all wrong, any religious morals are therefore created by those who practiced/invented the religion, which means there are far more viewpoints having gone into the creation of such morals.
Thirdly, it doesn't even matter whether the above is true with respect to what you said, even if religion is 100% made up, people who are religious (I'll pick on GWB again since he was by far more practicing Christian than Obama) are still basing their beliefs on something which is written down. This makes them more trustworthy, or perhaps a better word would be predictable. It is unlikely that someone like GWB will suddenly ever go "you know what, I think you're right, it's totally ok to allow abortion" because his beliefs are based on something which will not change. On the other hand, a politician who is completely atheistic has no such 'check' or 'reference' which means you have no idea that their position will not change.
"Common sense morals?" lol! There are so many examples of morals not being "common sense" both inside and outside theistic cultures. These "common sense" morals are only common sense because you personally believe in them, at the current time, given your set of circumstances. It is entirely possible they drastically change over time. A great example is the one you pointed out, slavery. Plenty of people thought it was "common sense" to allow slavery. What changed? Did people suddenly get "more common sense?" It seems likely to me that something like abortion is likely to eventually become a "common sense to outlaw" thing, while gay marriage will become a "wtf does the government care" common sense thing; neither of these is the current state in the United States.
Not to mention, common sense morals more or less is exactly what I am referring to when saying societal morals. The "this is morality as we see it, duh!" type of morality.
Regarding your final point, I am almost positive I have read more of the Bible and understand what it is saying better than you. I am not going to debate a book you seemingly do not know with you, so I will offer this: there is a difference between Old Testament law and the New Testament in terms of how we, ie not Jews living more than 2300 years ago, should interpret them in our daily lives. Not to mention, much of the Old Testament was written to a specific group of people at a specific time (that was a long time ago), which even if New Testament did not "free" us from Old Testament law, that slavery was much different at the time in practice and implementation (see Leviticus 25). Plus if you do want to see how to treat slaves from a Biblical standpoint, in light of Christ, read the book of Philemon in the New Testament, which specifically is written to a slaveowner from Paul.
Aduntu
Apr 22, 08:52 PM
Do you mean some Magical force creating Eve from Adam's rib?
not even interesting :cool:
Because it's harder to imagine that an intelligent designer had a hand in it than it is to imagine that everything happened by chance?
You are confusing the Big Bang Theory with current biochemical theories regarding primitive life with planetary formation. They are all independent working models of how events have unfolded in the past.
The only thing they happen to have in common is stand in the way of stubborn beliefs.
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
not even interesting :cool:
Because it's harder to imagine that an intelligent designer had a hand in it than it is to imagine that everything happened by chance?
You are confusing the Big Bang Theory with current biochemical theories regarding primitive life with planetary formation. They are all independent working models of how events have unfolded in the past.
The only thing they happen to have in common is stand in the way of stubborn beliefs.
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
nagromme
May 5, 02:35 PM
I get maybe 1 dropped call a year in a medium-to-large US city (top 50, not top 10!). For all I know it was the other party who dropped. But there are still dead zones that bug me—mostly in rural areas but also in random suburban spots.
Unfortunately, the other carriers seem to be dead in the same spots!
And AT&T customer service is miserable. (I’ve never needed customer service for phone stuff, but I have their DSL as well) At the same time, my friends with Sprint and Verizon have horror stories and are itching to switch carriers! Asking which one has worse customer service seems silly when they ALL seem so bad. Not bad every time, but bad often enough that I’d want to change carriers.
There are no good US carriers in my view :( At least AT&T lets me use voice and data at the same time.
There seems to be a real split in this thread: people who get lots of dropped calls with the iPhone and people who get none. I haven't had any dropped calls in the two years I've had my iPhone. But there have been many calls that never rang and instead went straight to voicemail.
I'm wondering if Apple might have produced a slew of defective iPhones, and those are the ones that are dropping calls. It's so strange that people are having such vastly different experiences, regardless of the call area. It sounds more like a hardware/software problem.
My guess is regional variation—even from neighborhood to neighborhood in the same city. That, and having contacts that use different networks. The drops aren’t necessarily caused from your own end. (One person might talk to a lot of land lines and another might talk to a lot of T-Moble people. If T-Mobile drops calls in that neighborhood, the person might think his iPhone was to blame.) So it’s hard to compare two peoples’ experiences. But it’s easy to know the whole situation isn’t acceptable!
Unfortunately, the other carriers seem to be dead in the same spots!
And AT&T customer service is miserable. (I’ve never needed customer service for phone stuff, but I have their DSL as well) At the same time, my friends with Sprint and Verizon have horror stories and are itching to switch carriers! Asking which one has worse customer service seems silly when they ALL seem so bad. Not bad every time, but bad often enough that I’d want to change carriers.
There are no good US carriers in my view :( At least AT&T lets me use voice and data at the same time.
There seems to be a real split in this thread: people who get lots of dropped calls with the iPhone and people who get none. I haven't had any dropped calls in the two years I've had my iPhone. But there have been many calls that never rang and instead went straight to voicemail.
I'm wondering if Apple might have produced a slew of defective iPhones, and those are the ones that are dropping calls. It's so strange that people are having such vastly different experiences, regardless of the call area. It sounds more like a hardware/software problem.
My guess is regional variation—even from neighborhood to neighborhood in the same city. That, and having contacts that use different networks. The drops aren’t necessarily caused from your own end. (One person might talk to a lot of land lines and another might talk to a lot of T-Moble people. If T-Mobile drops calls in that neighborhood, the person might think his iPhone was to blame.) So it’s hard to compare two peoples’ experiences. But it’s easy to know the whole situation isn’t acceptable!
econgeek
Apr 12, 11:01 PM
Yes, that was exactly my point. The people who know how to use the software are (sometimes) assistant editors, although I find the vast majority know how to do a few simple things, but do them well.. The original poster was implying you needed to be a hollywood film editor to judge technical capabilities, and I was saying they were the worst choice for just that reason.
The people who know the most about editing systems are the Sr. editors who work on heavy, effects based sequences that work in broadcast production environments (I'm not talking about me here). *They* are the ones who push systems to the limits and *they* are the ones who go to NAB. (They're still only 10% of that room)
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
Now if it turns out this is just the tip of the iceberg-- then we really could be in for a treat.
You're assuming that if you didn't see a demo of it, it doesn't exist. iMovie has titling built in. They didn't demo titling this evening. Therefore, you're presuming this app has less titling than iMovie!
That seems pretty silly.
The people who know the most about editing systems are the Sr. editors who work on heavy, effects based sequences that work in broadcast production environments (I'm not talking about me here). *They* are the ones who push systems to the limits and *they* are the ones who go to NAB. (They're still only 10% of that room)
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
Now if it turns out this is just the tip of the iceberg-- then we really could be in for a treat.
You're assuming that if you didn't see a demo of it, it doesn't exist. iMovie has titling built in. They didn't demo titling this evening. Therefore, you're presuming this app has less titling than iMovie!
That seems pretty silly.
lighthouse_man
Apr 13, 03:01 AM
Why are you people comparing one app price tag to the whole suite price tag? For all we know, all the suite apps will be released individually and will total what the full suite now costs.
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 01:46 PM
In Hinduism, reincarnation is a natural part of life. As long as you follow the rules of the caste you belong to, you will get better incarnation next time. In Buddhism, reincarnation is not a state of hell in itself, but it's a barrier to salvation - and it's caused by the insatiability of human wants.
There are several hells in Hinduism, or maybe it's better to refer to them as "purgatories". The purgatories are called naraka and there are many of them. There are various narakas for different sinners, such as one for alcoholics, another one for liars, a third one for thieves, etc. The punishments are usually made to "fit the crime" in ironic ways. In most teachings of Buddhism, there is a similar cosmology.
The "flames of hell" have been mentioned many places in the New Testament, but the original texts translate literally to "flames of Gehenna". Gehenna was a landfill outside Jerusalem, a symbol of total destruction at the time. People were throwing sulfur down on the flames to keep the fire burning. In other words, the Christian "hell" was intially the cessation of existance. This is what Buddhists refer to as "nirvana", i.e. no more reincarnations. It's a paradox that what in one religion is seen as salvation, used to be the opposite in another.
One man's carrot is another man's stick, eh? It still looks to me that hell or the fear of some form of afterlife penalty is being used as an inducement to follow the religion.
There are several hells in Hinduism, or maybe it's better to refer to them as "purgatories". The purgatories are called naraka and there are many of them. There are various narakas for different sinners, such as one for alcoholics, another one for liars, a third one for thieves, etc. The punishments are usually made to "fit the crime" in ironic ways. In most teachings of Buddhism, there is a similar cosmology.
The "flames of hell" have been mentioned many places in the New Testament, but the original texts translate literally to "flames of Gehenna". Gehenna was a landfill outside Jerusalem, a symbol of total destruction at the time. People were throwing sulfur down on the flames to keep the fire burning. In other words, the Christian "hell" was intially the cessation of existance. This is what Buddhists refer to as "nirvana", i.e. no more reincarnations. It's a paradox that what in one religion is seen as salvation, used to be the opposite in another.
One man's carrot is another man's stick, eh? It still looks to me that hell or the fear of some form of afterlife penalty is being used as an inducement to follow the religion.
SuperCachetes
Mar 27, 09:35 AM
You need to learn how to read quoted text before reading a response.
You obviously seem to be missing the extremely simple point here, I was merely pointing out that in Catholicism priests are expected to be celibate so expecting a gay person to be celibate is not exactly unheard of in a religious context.
The fact that some people have the opinion that being gay is OK as long as you are not a practicing gay follows the same logic as priests being expected to remain celibate and also shares some of the reasons why as well.
If you had followed the thread you would see where the original comment came from.
And maybe you need to learn that when you reiterate a point that has already been made in the form of a "why not" question, you are viewed to be supporting the point. I have followed the thread, and I saw the point you were quoting. If you are saying that it makes any kind of sense, I'll ask you again, "why?"
That the Catholics believe this bit about celibacy has been apparent for a few pages - there was never any need for you to regurgitate the point. But now that you apparently have, and have assigned some sort of logic to it, I'm asking what is that logic. What reasons that apply to a priest being celibate might apply to a gay person?
You seem to be trying to defend everything about your post but the only issue anyone could ever have with it.
You obviously seem to be missing the extremely simple point here, I was merely pointing out that in Catholicism priests are expected to be celibate so expecting a gay person to be celibate is not exactly unheard of in a religious context.
The fact that some people have the opinion that being gay is OK as long as you are not a practicing gay follows the same logic as priests being expected to remain celibate and also shares some of the reasons why as well.
If you had followed the thread you would see where the original comment came from.
And maybe you need to learn that when you reiterate a point that has already been made in the form of a "why not" question, you are viewed to be supporting the point. I have followed the thread, and I saw the point you were quoting. If you are saying that it makes any kind of sense, I'll ask you again, "why?"
That the Catholics believe this bit about celibacy has been apparent for a few pages - there was never any need for you to regurgitate the point. But now that you apparently have, and have assigned some sort of logic to it, I'm asking what is that logic. What reasons that apply to a priest being celibate might apply to a gay person?
You seem to be trying to defend everything about your post but the only issue anyone could ever have with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment