ethana
Mar 31, 02:43 PM
How is it biting them in the ass? Android is the fastest growing OS with a larger share than IOS. I think it's been a very succesfull strategy.
Smartphone OS, yes (iPhone vs. Android phones).
iOS as whole (iPads + iPods + iPhones) kills Android numbers though. By LARGE margins.
Smartphone OS, yes (iPhone vs. Android phones).
iOS as whole (iPads + iPods + iPhones) kills Android numbers though. By LARGE margins.
BWhaler
Aug 26, 07:11 PM
Note: I believe I accidentally merged someone's (possibly a couple of people's) posts into BWhaler's post (3 above this post). Sorry. :o
jsw, thanks for merging my postings.
Didn't mean to spam the thread. (Just wasn't thinking...)
jsw, thanks for merging my postings.
Didn't mean to spam the thread. (Just wasn't thinking...)
NY Guitarist
Apr 5, 07:23 PM
I hope the next release of FCS integrates the different apps within the suite under a single UI.
The whole "Send to" export concept always seemed like an awkward workaround for using this package as a "suite".
As sad as it was to see Apple kill off Shake, my hope is that it will be reborn inside FC as the node based compositor portion of the package. Motion inherited some of Shake's features, notably SmoothCam, so hopefully more of Shake will live on in FCP.
I'd really like to see FCS become of a single app where the "suite" of apps becomes more of a "mode" of operating. In other words if you choose to do editing the UI can switch to a mode that focuses on that, as with compositing, titles (LiveType) or audio editing (Soundtrack).. and so on.
The whole "Send to" export concept always seemed like an awkward workaround for using this package as a "suite".
As sad as it was to see Apple kill off Shake, my hope is that it will be reborn inside FC as the node based compositor portion of the package. Motion inherited some of Shake's features, notably SmoothCam, so hopefully more of Shake will live on in FCP.
I'd really like to see FCS become of a single app where the "suite" of apps becomes more of a "mode" of operating. In other words if you choose to do editing the UI can switch to a mode that focuses on that, as with compositing, titles (LiveType) or audio editing (Soundtrack).. and so on.
twoodcc
Aug 12, 09:04 PM
I don't really care if you count the Prologues as full releases or not. The fact remains...
GT1 + GT2 + GT3 + GT4 = 46M
...not 57M like you originally, and incorrectly, said.
but you do care. you are pointing out that you care by what you just typed. if you count the prologues, you get over 57M sold.
You brought up sales, not me. And last I checked, objectively, 100 is more than 57, regardless of how you subjectively look at it.
i disagree. let's bring math into the equation, since you seem to have missed it.
100,000,000/15 = 6,666,667.
57,000,000/8 = 7,125,000.
so GT has sold more copies per game.
No, the only thing that adds to is a stat point on the back of the box. I mean, hooray, someone's 87 CRX is in a racing game. YAY!! :rolleyes:
That is the problem with GT these days. Too much fluff, and lacking in the racing. I mean, whatever, they can make whatever kind of game they want. If they want to fill the game with 1000 cars, 800 of which most people never touch, they can do that. To me, though, they are losing what made the series great years ago.
well again this is your opinion. we all have one. i personally think that if someone is into cars, they will care about their car. not everyone can afford the cars in the game, but it might be nice to see that car that you can afford and have in real life in the game. i mean, the game is meant for people into cars.
NO WAY!!! I never knew that. :rolleyes:
just pointing out the facts. are you doing any different?
Sure, but a "Guinness Record" for it? Again, to much fluff.
they have records for everything. like how much cheese you can eat, or whatever. that's what Guinness Records are
No, it is a concept car that Citro�n paraded around at car shows. Lots of concept cars get built with the fake intention of going into production. But you know what? Almost none of them do. This Citro�n is no different.
but the intention of the car was for the game. how do you not see that? specifically for the game. in fact, it's named GT after the game
My point is, he was trying to use GT's high sales as a quantifier of the series greatness. Then, when I showed 2 examples of other racing game series with higher sales, he said they were different types of racing games, and that they don't count. Which is understandable, because they are not the same type of game. But then, ultimately, as I said before, if you don't count those other types of racing games, you're really only comparing GT to Forza, since that is the only other similar game.
But what does that prove? A game series that has been out for almost 13 years has sold more than a similar type of game series that has only been out for a little over 5 years. Big shock there. I'll be the first to admit that Forza isn't even remotely close to as big of a sales hit as the GT series. But, like I've said before, liking a game is a subjective thing, and everyone is entitled to their own choices. But sales are an objective thing, that has no relevance to somethings greatness.
how does sales have no relevance if something is great? so iPhone sales show nothing to how good it is? or iPod sales mean nothing to how well it is? of course it does. you make games to sell. if they don't sell, you stop making games. and then there wouldn't be this thread, b/c there would be no GT5.
GT1 + GT2 + GT3 + GT4 = 46M
...not 57M like you originally, and incorrectly, said.
but you do care. you are pointing out that you care by what you just typed. if you count the prologues, you get over 57M sold.
You brought up sales, not me. And last I checked, objectively, 100 is more than 57, regardless of how you subjectively look at it.
i disagree. let's bring math into the equation, since you seem to have missed it.
100,000,000/15 = 6,666,667.
57,000,000/8 = 7,125,000.
so GT has sold more copies per game.
No, the only thing that adds to is a stat point on the back of the box. I mean, hooray, someone's 87 CRX is in a racing game. YAY!! :rolleyes:
That is the problem with GT these days. Too much fluff, and lacking in the racing. I mean, whatever, they can make whatever kind of game they want. If they want to fill the game with 1000 cars, 800 of which most people never touch, they can do that. To me, though, they are losing what made the series great years ago.
well again this is your opinion. we all have one. i personally think that if someone is into cars, they will care about their car. not everyone can afford the cars in the game, but it might be nice to see that car that you can afford and have in real life in the game. i mean, the game is meant for people into cars.
NO WAY!!! I never knew that. :rolleyes:
just pointing out the facts. are you doing any different?
Sure, but a "Guinness Record" for it? Again, to much fluff.
they have records for everything. like how much cheese you can eat, or whatever. that's what Guinness Records are
No, it is a concept car that Citro�n paraded around at car shows. Lots of concept cars get built with the fake intention of going into production. But you know what? Almost none of them do. This Citro�n is no different.
but the intention of the car was for the game. how do you not see that? specifically for the game. in fact, it's named GT after the game
My point is, he was trying to use GT's high sales as a quantifier of the series greatness. Then, when I showed 2 examples of other racing game series with higher sales, he said they were different types of racing games, and that they don't count. Which is understandable, because they are not the same type of game. But then, ultimately, as I said before, if you don't count those other types of racing games, you're really only comparing GT to Forza, since that is the only other similar game.
But what does that prove? A game series that has been out for almost 13 years has sold more than a similar type of game series that has only been out for a little over 5 years. Big shock there. I'll be the first to admit that Forza isn't even remotely close to as big of a sales hit as the GT series. But, like I've said before, liking a game is a subjective thing, and everyone is entitled to their own choices. But sales are an objective thing, that has no relevance to somethings greatness.
how does sales have no relevance if something is great? so iPhone sales show nothing to how good it is? or iPod sales mean nothing to how well it is? of course it does. you make games to sell. if they don't sell, you stop making games. and then there wouldn't be this thread, b/c there would be no GT5.
toddybody
Apr 6, 11:01 AM
You sure as hell can.
SC2 on MBA FTW!
SC2 on MBA FTW!
mwswami
Jul 21, 05:00 PM
One way to get eight cores is to get 4 Mac Minis (just wait for the lowest model to become dual core), stack them up, and put them on a KVM. You get 8 cores, and 4 optical drives for *cheap*. Just a thought.;)
Sorry, I just noticed that the $599 models doesn't have a SuperDrive. BUT going to the $799 model may still make a lot of sense for you. All the work units are independent of each other and hence easily distributable to the Minis form your existing PowerMac. Hey, you could even figure out how to use XGrid for this. I would love to hear from you if you research this further.
Sorry, I just noticed that the $599 models doesn't have a SuperDrive. BUT going to the $799 model may still make a lot of sense for you. All the work units are independent of each other and hence easily distributable to the Minis form your existing PowerMac. Hey, you could even figure out how to use XGrid for this. I would love to hear from you if you research this further.
marksman
Mar 23, 10:10 AM
LG and others had semi-smartphones with 3.5" screens back in 2006 and early 2007
Do you know what an iPhone is and does?
How is that comparable?
I have an original Palm PDA still shrink wrapped from the store from 1994. What relevance is that?
Are you trying to imply that those devices were in the least bit similar to an iPhone besides relative dimensions of the screen?
Do you know what an iPhone is and does?
How is that comparable?
I have an original Palm PDA still shrink wrapped from the store from 1994. What relevance is that?
Are you trying to imply that those devices were in the least bit similar to an iPhone besides relative dimensions of the screen?
AhmedFaisal
Apr 27, 10:29 PM
I'm seriously beginning to lose my patience with idiots. Is anyone else completely sick of these fools?
I lost it a long time ago. Trump is an asshat that should just shut the **** up and go back to diddling eastern european models and building casinos (is that christian right compliant I wonder?).
The truth is if Barack Obama was instead Piers Morgan or Simon Cowell and a republican candidate, there would have been an uproar if anyone had dared to ask if they were actually Americans by birth. Its racism, period. The right doesn't want a liberool n***** in the white house. That is it in the ****ing list. Anyone saying that's not what this is about is a ****ing liar.
I lost it a long time ago. Trump is an asshat that should just shut the **** up and go back to diddling eastern european models and building casinos (is that christian right compliant I wonder?).
The truth is if Barack Obama was instead Piers Morgan or Simon Cowell and a republican candidate, there would have been an uproar if anyone had dared to ask if they were actually Americans by birth. Its racism, period. The right doesn't want a liberool n***** in the white house. That is it in the ****ing list. Anyone saying that's not what this is about is a ****ing liar.
dpMacsmith
Jul 14, 03:54 PM
Amen to that. Especially when you look at the dell site and see that their tower with that same CPU costs about $2400.
This makes a nice discussion piece. But, I don't think that Apple will undercut the Dell price. My personal opinion is that the configurations are about right. But, the prices are too low. The table is bogus.
This makes a nice discussion piece. But, I don't think that Apple will undercut the Dell price. My personal opinion is that the configurations are about right. But, the prices are too low. The table is bogus.
fivepoint
Mar 23, 02:20 PM
Again, Fivepoint, you forget that the President was selling the Iraq war with suspicious and weak information that the many questioned. It turns out they were right. Pre-war, the big issue was whether the war was justified based on the evidence being pushed by the President. The criticism President Bush faced thereafter had a lot to do with the fact that he lied to the American people in order to start a poorly planned war. They bungled every aspect of a war they lied to get us into. There were plenty of reasons to be critical.
"Lying" implies intent. Are you accusing them of lying, or getting it wrong?
Yes, there were many reasons to be critical.
Is it your position that Libya represents a larger danger to American assets/security than Iraq? If not, is it your suggestion that America should be involved in every humanitarian crisis with brutal dictators worldwide, or at least those comparable to Libya? If so, why aren't we in North Korea? Why aren't we in any number of African nations?
Out of curiousity, what do you expect? I expect conservative congressmen and women to support a conservative president, but to think for themselves, and do what they independently think is right. I don't respect blind support like what they did under GWB. Similarly, I expect liberal congressmen and women to support a liberal president, but to also think for themselves, and do what they independently think is right. Some are speaking out, and some are not blindly supporting President Obama. Can you acknowledge that the liberals are doing a better job with consistency than the GOP? If not, how do you explain GOP opposition to the Libya action?
Part of what you say is true, in that I should EXPECT people to be more critical of the other side. This is true. But I also think it's important (especially in this forum) to point out hypocrisy stemming from the left so that the Macrumors Echo Chamber doesn't keep you all in denial. What I personally expect is people to stand on principles, and not on parties. What I expect is that people live their lives in a honorable way and present a consistent philosophy. This is the same reason I rip on neo-con Republicans for talking about fiscal conservatism when history has shown us that their real world actions when in power are very different from their rhetoric... even if they still aren't as bad as the Democrats... it's not good enough. Both parties are bad at it, too many people simply tow the party line and don't think for themselves.
It sure is easy to peg me isn't it? Too bad if you go back over my posts you will find more than enough denouncing involvement in Iraq / Afghanistan.
It's much easier than actually addressing your real views... it's a defense mechanism which she uses to avoid serious debate.
If you are supporting non-intervention, than I disagree. I support the notion that the UN (using member-nations' pooled military or civilian assets) should be able to intervene in a nation's affairs if it is thought necessary to either 1) protect other nations from harm or 2) protect a nation's own people from its government, or in the case of a civil war, one or more factions.
Being a 'non-interventionist' does not mean that you NEVER support war, it means that you avoid it whenever possible. It means that you are far less prone to military intervention than someone who does not care about the values of non-interventionism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism
Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
"Lying" implies intent. Are you accusing them of lying, or getting it wrong?
Yes, there were many reasons to be critical.
Is it your position that Libya represents a larger danger to American assets/security than Iraq? If not, is it your suggestion that America should be involved in every humanitarian crisis with brutal dictators worldwide, or at least those comparable to Libya? If so, why aren't we in North Korea? Why aren't we in any number of African nations?
Out of curiousity, what do you expect? I expect conservative congressmen and women to support a conservative president, but to think for themselves, and do what they independently think is right. I don't respect blind support like what they did under GWB. Similarly, I expect liberal congressmen and women to support a liberal president, but to also think for themselves, and do what they independently think is right. Some are speaking out, and some are not blindly supporting President Obama. Can you acknowledge that the liberals are doing a better job with consistency than the GOP? If not, how do you explain GOP opposition to the Libya action?
Part of what you say is true, in that I should EXPECT people to be more critical of the other side. This is true. But I also think it's important (especially in this forum) to point out hypocrisy stemming from the left so that the Macrumors Echo Chamber doesn't keep you all in denial. What I personally expect is people to stand on principles, and not on parties. What I expect is that people live their lives in a honorable way and present a consistent philosophy. This is the same reason I rip on neo-con Republicans for talking about fiscal conservatism when history has shown us that their real world actions when in power are very different from their rhetoric... even if they still aren't as bad as the Democrats... it's not good enough. Both parties are bad at it, too many people simply tow the party line and don't think for themselves.
It sure is easy to peg me isn't it? Too bad if you go back over my posts you will find more than enough denouncing involvement in Iraq / Afghanistan.
It's much easier than actually addressing your real views... it's a defense mechanism which she uses to avoid serious debate.
If you are supporting non-intervention, than I disagree. I support the notion that the UN (using member-nations' pooled military or civilian assets) should be able to intervene in a nation's affairs if it is thought necessary to either 1) protect other nations from harm or 2) protect a nation's own people from its government, or in the case of a civil war, one or more factions.
Being a 'non-interventionist' does not mean that you NEVER support war, it means that you avoid it whenever possible. It means that you are far less prone to military intervention than someone who does not care about the values of non-interventionism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism
Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
tripjammer
Mar 22, 12:51 PM
The IPad 2 killer - you heard it here first.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
Nope...its rim...so the hardware is going to be crap. The Samsung will be closer to the ipad 2 killer....what am I saying there will never be an ipad 2 killer.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
Nope...its rim...so the hardware is going to be crap. The Samsung will be closer to the ipad 2 killer....what am I saying there will never be an ipad 2 killer.
63dot
Apr 25, 02:21 PM
Prove it.
It may be hard to prove and the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, but the mere appearance of the technology allowing the possibility to be tracked is enough for the feds to get something out of Apple.
It may be hard to prove and the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, but the mere appearance of the technology allowing the possibility to be tracked is enough for the feds to get something out of Apple.
HiRez
Sep 18, 11:57 PM
The aluminum design has been been pretty good (although I personally like the Titanium design better, with the dark keys that don't get glared when light is shining on them). But, the Mac pro laptop line is in dire need on a system refresh. The design is getting a little stale.
Here's what I'd like to see:
-- How about some new textures for the case, such as brushed copper? I think that would look sharp. Or tinted aluminum, including brushed black metal. The brushings could even have subtle anisotropic patterns visible when tilted into and away from light sources, like circular rings, houndstooth, herringbone, starburst, etc. Imagine a blue-greenish "surfer" MBP with a "wave" pattern brushed into it, or a Boston Celtics green or two-toned wood-colored model with a brushed parquet pattern. This would be some real cutting-edge design that no other laptop vendor could easily copy.
-- 256 MB graphics, Radeon X1800 Mobility or better
-- HDMI output
-- SDI input and dual SDI video output (fill + key). Yes, input. This would be fantastic for mobile video professionals.
-- 1920x1200 resolution on the 17" model (this will become important with the resolution-independent UI in Leopard)
-- 1680x1050 resolution on the 15" model
-- 12"-13" model with 1440x900 resolution and backlit keyboard
-- Dual Firewire ports on separate controllers, with no shared bandwidth. One 400 Mbps, one 400/800?
-- Three USB2 ports on separate controllers.
Here's what I'd like to see:
-- How about some new textures for the case, such as brushed copper? I think that would look sharp. Or tinted aluminum, including brushed black metal. The brushings could even have subtle anisotropic patterns visible when tilted into and away from light sources, like circular rings, houndstooth, herringbone, starburst, etc. Imagine a blue-greenish "surfer" MBP with a "wave" pattern brushed into it, or a Boston Celtics green or two-toned wood-colored model with a brushed parquet pattern. This would be some real cutting-edge design that no other laptop vendor could easily copy.
-- 256 MB graphics, Radeon X1800 Mobility or better
-- HDMI output
-- SDI input and dual SDI video output (fill + key). Yes, input. This would be fantastic for mobile video professionals.
-- 1920x1200 resolution on the 17" model (this will become important with the resolution-independent UI in Leopard)
-- 1680x1050 resolution on the 15" model
-- 12"-13" model with 1440x900 resolution and backlit keyboard
-- Dual Firewire ports on separate controllers, with no shared bandwidth. One 400 Mbps, one 400/800?
-- Three USB2 ports on separate controllers.
daver969
Sep 13, 11:05 AM
A bit pointless given that no software utilises the extra cores yet. But nice to know, I guess.
I'm still getting used to having two cores in my laptop!
What I couldn't understand - I couldn't see it explained in the article - why is the dual core Mac Pro (i.e. with current Mac Pro with 2 cores disabled) faster in so many tests than the 4 core Mac Pro.
I think part of the reason so many people seem to be hung up on the "software doesn't utilize multiple cores" mantra is because benchmarks tend to test only one software component at a time. If a given app isn't multithreaded, then it doesn't benefit from multiple cores in these tests. But that doesn't mean that multiple cores don't affect the overall system speed.
What we need is some kind of a super benchmark: How fast is my computer when I'm watching a quicktime stream of Steve demoing the latest insanely great stuff, while ripping my CD collection to iTunes, while surfing complex Cnet.com pages (w/animation), and compiling the latest version of my Java app, every once in a while flipping over to Dashboard (dashboard seems to take up a lot of system resources every time I invoke it, not just on startup).
At this point I would rather push towards more cores than more raw speed in a single core, since I don't tend to wait on any single process. If something is taking a long time, like loading a page or compiling code, I switch to something else and come back later. I would much rather have the whole system retain its responsive feel than have one app finish its task a few seconds quicker.
I'm still getting used to having two cores in my laptop!
What I couldn't understand - I couldn't see it explained in the article - why is the dual core Mac Pro (i.e. with current Mac Pro with 2 cores disabled) faster in so many tests than the 4 core Mac Pro.
I think part of the reason so many people seem to be hung up on the "software doesn't utilize multiple cores" mantra is because benchmarks tend to test only one software component at a time. If a given app isn't multithreaded, then it doesn't benefit from multiple cores in these tests. But that doesn't mean that multiple cores don't affect the overall system speed.
What we need is some kind of a super benchmark: How fast is my computer when I'm watching a quicktime stream of Steve demoing the latest insanely great stuff, while ripping my CD collection to iTunes, while surfing complex Cnet.com pages (w/animation), and compiling the latest version of my Java app, every once in a while flipping over to Dashboard (dashboard seems to take up a lot of system resources every time I invoke it, not just on startup).
At this point I would rather push towards more cores than more raw speed in a single core, since I don't tend to wait on any single process. If something is taking a long time, like loading a page or compiling code, I switch to something else and come back later. I would much rather have the whole system retain its responsive feel than have one app finish its task a few seconds quicker.
CaoCao
Mar 4, 01:46 PM
This is true because you say it's true?
Nope, you just want to make sure that we can't have access to the same protections for our families that you do. How silly of me to want that.
Not at all. Gay people raise kids just as well as straight people- that's been proven. And we do have families. There is no risk of destroying society. The question is valid. Answer it.
A bit of delay in my response because I had to look it up, but thanks for letting us have this right for 7 years now..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg/400px-Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg.png
Red = Sodomy Laws struck down by the US Supreme Court in 2003
And yet I doubt Macaroony sees opposite-sex attractions as immoral or placing oneself in grave danger. I know what your religious beliefs tell you, and it is your right to follow those as explicitly as you are legally able. But why does that have to impact the rest of the world when you know many of them share different beliefs and have different experiences?
Personally, I think people who believe in gods are weak-minded fools. But I would never support a law that mandated atheism or banned religious gatherings. Because these religious things, while they are not in line with my worldview, do not impact my way of life directly, and allow people to live how they think they need to, not how I think they need to.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and venture a guess that you don't have a non-biased fact source for a retarded statement like that. :rolleyes:
CaoCao, could you please elaborate as to how gays could cause the collapse of society? I keep hearing that but I don't understand the sentiment behind it. And please, do not skirt around the answer, I always try to be as clear as day with mine.
The only explanation I can come up with as to why you would see being gay and giving gays the same civil rights as the collapse of society is that it differs so much from your worldview, it causes your world to collapse to the point where you feel nothing but uncomfortable to live in such a society. In other words; if gays are treated equal under every law under the sun, your society would collapse.
I often hear that same-sex marriage devalues marriage and threatens those that are already married. I wonder why and how. I doubt that your straight neighbor's happy marriage affects you at all unless you're so jealous, you want their marriage to be annulled - a happy same-sex couple must be killing you inside. I have said it here and in another thread before, marriage is nothing but a contract between two members of two families and the state to secure their fortune and legacy. Every attorney will tell you the same.
I have to say, it's very exhausting coming up with a defense convincing enough for those that don't seem to follow the world by logic. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer because if law is like that all the time, I'd rather give up on it and live in exile.
Logic is my source. Society needs people, no people means no society. If there were no more babies society would eventually collapse.
Source?
:rolleyes:
Nope, you just want to make sure that we can't have access to the same protections for our families that you do. How silly of me to want that.
Not at all. Gay people raise kids just as well as straight people- that's been proven. And we do have families. There is no risk of destroying society. The question is valid. Answer it.
A bit of delay in my response because I had to look it up, but thanks for letting us have this right for 7 years now..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg/400px-Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg.png
Red = Sodomy Laws struck down by the US Supreme Court in 2003
And yet I doubt Macaroony sees opposite-sex attractions as immoral or placing oneself in grave danger. I know what your religious beliefs tell you, and it is your right to follow those as explicitly as you are legally able. But why does that have to impact the rest of the world when you know many of them share different beliefs and have different experiences?
Personally, I think people who believe in gods are weak-minded fools. But I would never support a law that mandated atheism or banned religious gatherings. Because these religious things, while they are not in line with my worldview, do not impact my way of life directly, and allow people to live how they think they need to, not how I think they need to.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and venture a guess that you don't have a non-biased fact source for a retarded statement like that. :rolleyes:
CaoCao, could you please elaborate as to how gays could cause the collapse of society? I keep hearing that but I don't understand the sentiment behind it. And please, do not skirt around the answer, I always try to be as clear as day with mine.
The only explanation I can come up with as to why you would see being gay and giving gays the same civil rights as the collapse of society is that it differs so much from your worldview, it causes your world to collapse to the point where you feel nothing but uncomfortable to live in such a society. In other words; if gays are treated equal under every law under the sun, your society would collapse.
I often hear that same-sex marriage devalues marriage and threatens those that are already married. I wonder why and how. I doubt that your straight neighbor's happy marriage affects you at all unless you're so jealous, you want their marriage to be annulled - a happy same-sex couple must be killing you inside. I have said it here and in another thread before, marriage is nothing but a contract between two members of two families and the state to secure their fortune and legacy. Every attorney will tell you the same.
I have to say, it's very exhausting coming up with a defense convincing enough for those that don't seem to follow the world by logic. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer because if law is like that all the time, I'd rather give up on it and live in exile.
Logic is my source. Society needs people, no people means no society. If there were no more babies society would eventually collapse.
Source?
:rolleyes:
ivladster
Mar 22, 01:40 PM
Blackberry playbook = The IPad 2 killer - you heard it here first.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
Is this a joke? What specs? Where are the apps, where are amazing games, where are publications and magazines? No where to be found.
Playbook will not even scratch the surface - you heart it here first.
lulz:apple:
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
Is this a joke? What specs? Where are the apps, where are amazing games, where are publications and magazines? No where to be found.
Playbook will not even scratch the surface - you heart it here first.
lulz:apple:
GuitarDTO
Mar 31, 04:43 PM
Man do these stories bring out the ignoranus fanboys. IMO if you have never owned both an Android phone and an iPhone, you shouldn't be allowed to comment because 99% just can't be objective about it.
Now, I'll hop on my pedestal and say I owned the original Moto Droid, and now own an iPhone. The ability to customize your experience on a droid is what I found so attractive, and Google isn't taking that away, so IMO this story is nothing but good for Android. Better control, more polish, yet the same customization capability that the majority of everyday users want. All of the iBoys tooting their horns and patting each other are doing so for absolutely no reason.
With that said, the polish of the iPhone is what I love the most about it, and if I could pair that polish with Androids ability for personalization of my device without jailbreaking and their much superior notification system, it would be the perfect phone. The next device to get it all right gets my money, whether its apple or Google.
Now, I'll hop on my pedestal and say I owned the original Moto Droid, and now own an iPhone. The ability to customize your experience on a droid is what I found so attractive, and Google isn't taking that away, so IMO this story is nothing but good for Android. Better control, more polish, yet the same customization capability that the majority of everyday users want. All of the iBoys tooting their horns and patting each other are doing so for absolutely no reason.
With that said, the polish of the iPhone is what I love the most about it, and if I could pair that polish with Androids ability for personalization of my device without jailbreaking and their much superior notification system, it would be the perfect phone. The next device to get it all right gets my money, whether its apple or Google.
FreeState
Feb 28, 08:23 PM
They still can not have valid sacramental marriage
Fornication doesn't matter if the person doesn't care about the religious connotations of marriage
Here let me fix that for you:
They Gays and lesbians still can not have a valid sacramental Catholic marriage.
Fornication doesn't matter if the person doesn't care about the religious connotations of marriage Catholicism view of fornication and marriage.
---
There are Christian Churches that perform marriage for any loving couple, regardless of orientation. The Catholic Church does not dictate doctrine for all Christians.
Fornication doesn't matter if the person doesn't care about the religious connotations of marriage
Here let me fix that for you:
They Gays and lesbians still can not have a valid sacramental Catholic marriage.
Fornication doesn't matter if the person doesn't care about the religious connotations of marriage Catholicism view of fornication and marriage.
---
There are Christian Churches that perform marriage for any loving couple, regardless of orientation. The Catholic Church does not dictate doctrine for all Christians.
cloudnine
Aug 25, 04:35 PM
Over the years I have bought a lot of computers for my business from a lot of different venders. To be honest Apple hardware support has never impressed me! :mad: I have actually had much better support from Dell than from Apple.
As far as .Mac goes it is one of the most poorly supported systems I have ever used in my life. They have a lousey limited faq sheet, common problems, email support is pitiful, and they don't take voice support. .Mac is a joke for $100.00 a year.
In general Apple's entire help system in OS X sucks. Searchs within the context of an application gives you all kinds of crap from every application on the system. Also there is no depth to the system. If your problem isn't the most elementary problem possible (99% of which you can figure out yourself) then it won't be in any of the help files.
Just out of curiosity... what kind of problems could you possibly have with .mac? I mean, I've never had any email problems, Setting it up in Mail is as simple as possible... the online interface is simple...
I dunno... hearing people complain about customer service regarding .mac seems funny to me. What types of problems have you had with it?
Granted, there are problems with the mac hardware. but till date, I've found apple tech support excellent. They have always replaced my hardware with no questions asked. In fact, they replaced my whole LCD screen on my 3 year old powerbook just because of a white spot.
I wish I had such luck. Apparently if you have a 15" powerbook, they'll replace that display with no questions asked. I have a 12" powerbook without a single scratch on it that i treat like a baby... but apparently it's my fault because i put too much pressure on it... even though i use a sleeve in a cushioned pocket of a cushioned bag. o_O
ergh. :mad:
As far as .Mac goes it is one of the most poorly supported systems I have ever used in my life. They have a lousey limited faq sheet, common problems, email support is pitiful, and they don't take voice support. .Mac is a joke for $100.00 a year.
In general Apple's entire help system in OS X sucks. Searchs within the context of an application gives you all kinds of crap from every application on the system. Also there is no depth to the system. If your problem isn't the most elementary problem possible (99% of which you can figure out yourself) then it won't be in any of the help files.
Just out of curiosity... what kind of problems could you possibly have with .mac? I mean, I've never had any email problems, Setting it up in Mail is as simple as possible... the online interface is simple...
I dunno... hearing people complain about customer service regarding .mac seems funny to me. What types of problems have you had with it?
Granted, there are problems with the mac hardware. but till date, I've found apple tech support excellent. They have always replaced my hardware with no questions asked. In fact, they replaced my whole LCD screen on my 3 year old powerbook just because of a white spot.
I wish I had such luck. Apparently if you have a 15" powerbook, they'll replace that display with no questions asked. I have a 12" powerbook without a single scratch on it that i treat like a baby... but apparently it's my fault because i put too much pressure on it... even though i use a sleeve in a cushioned pocket of a cushioned bag. o_O
ergh. :mad:
dethmaShine
Apr 19, 02:57 PM
For Q1/11 aprox. 15% for Apple.
Q4/10 numbers were:
http://www.canalys.com/pr/images/r2011013.gif
Again: Apple sold 3 million more devices in Q4/10 than they did in Q3/10 (16 million compared to 13 million in total numbers) but they lost 0.7% marketshare in that 3 month (Q3/10: 16.7% marketshare, see first graph, Q4/10: 16.0%, see above).
Hmm.
What about this:
http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2011/4/comScore_Reports_February_2011_U.S._Mobile_Subscriber_Market_Share
http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2011/3/comScore_Reports_January_2011_U.S._Mobile_Subscriber_Market_Share
Q4/10 numbers were:
http://www.canalys.com/pr/images/r2011013.gif
Again: Apple sold 3 million more devices in Q4/10 than they did in Q3/10 (16 million compared to 13 million in total numbers) but they lost 0.7% marketshare in that 3 month (Q3/10: 16.7% marketshare, see first graph, Q4/10: 16.0%, see above).
Hmm.
What about this:
http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2011/4/comScore_Reports_February_2011_U.S._Mobile_Subscriber_Market_Share
http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2011/3/comScore_Reports_January_2011_U.S._Mobile_Subscriber_Market_Share
EETFUK
Apr 8, 12:01 AM
It's great that BB sells them. I just walked right in and bought my iPad 2 instead of waiting for a month or longer from Apple. BB was happy to take my cash. haha.
MarkMS
Mar 31, 04:14 PM
And the Apple haters do yet another 180...
1. Macs
1995 to 2007: Don't use a Mac. Noone uses Macs.
2007 to Present: Don't use a Mac. Everyone uses a Mac.
2. Apps
1995 to 2/22/2011: Don't use Apple. There is no software and they can't do anything.
2/22 to Present: Apps? Who needs Apps as long as you have a robust UI?
3. Open
2007 to Today: Apple is a walled garden that only stupid lemmings use.
Today going forward: Controlling the OS is necessary and good for the consumer.
Exactly! I've heard every single one of those arguments, except instead of a lemming ... I'm an iSheep!
And for those of you that add "customizing/theming" as a great feature to Android, please take a look at what your peers are proud of. http://fuglyandroid.tumblr.com/
1. Macs
1995 to 2007: Don't use a Mac. Noone uses Macs.
2007 to Present: Don't use a Mac. Everyone uses a Mac.
2. Apps
1995 to 2/22/2011: Don't use Apple. There is no software and they can't do anything.
2/22 to Present: Apps? Who needs Apps as long as you have a robust UI?
3. Open
2007 to Today: Apple is a walled garden that only stupid lemmings use.
Today going forward: Controlling the OS is necessary and good for the consumer.
Exactly! I've heard every single one of those arguments, except instead of a lemming ... I'm an iSheep!
And for those of you that add "customizing/theming" as a great feature to Android, please take a look at what your peers are proud of. http://fuglyandroid.tumblr.com/
FoxHoundADAM
Apr 11, 11:56 AM
Ugh. The iPhone 4, while beautiful, still needs a larger screen for my liking. Maybe I just bite the bullet and switch to the Inspire. Save some cash in the process.
Kan-O-Z
Mar 31, 02:57 PM
You could say the same thing about Apple though. The Apple fad will go away and the extremely closed ecosystem which seems to not be really developing much in terms of UI or having an actual roadmap could end iOS.
I don't understand why people can't just see the pros and cons of both and accept both are great platforms. Its always a WAR with Apple fans. Apple against EVERYONE!
I am an Apple fan and I do recognize pros and cons with both platforms. When you have control and integration of hardware and software, you have a much better experience, more stability, better overall hardware quality (both hardware and software), etc. The "open" systems don't control anything so anything goes, including installing any app you may find anywhere and customize things to your hearts content.
What I would like to say is that for 95% of people out there, the advantages of iOS are far more important than the advantages of Android. Honestly most people are very happy with all of the capabilities of the iPhone (and app store) all of which the iPhone performs beautifully. On top of that the Apple ecosystem is so easy and so integrated...Android can't compete. Think about renting a movie on your iPhone, streaming songs and videos to your TV, buying songs and books on the fly, etc...on top of which many ppl have extensive iTunes content and it integrates right in. Where do you start with Andriod with all this? And remember that people on this forum are the techies...and don't represent 95% of people out there.
Kan-O-Z
I don't understand why people can't just see the pros and cons of both and accept both are great platforms. Its always a WAR with Apple fans. Apple against EVERYONE!
I am an Apple fan and I do recognize pros and cons with both platforms. When you have control and integration of hardware and software, you have a much better experience, more stability, better overall hardware quality (both hardware and software), etc. The "open" systems don't control anything so anything goes, including installing any app you may find anywhere and customize things to your hearts content.
What I would like to say is that for 95% of people out there, the advantages of iOS are far more important than the advantages of Android. Honestly most people are very happy with all of the capabilities of the iPhone (and app store) all of which the iPhone performs beautifully. On top of that the Apple ecosystem is so easy and so integrated...Android can't compete. Think about renting a movie on your iPhone, streaming songs and videos to your TV, buying songs and books on the fly, etc...on top of which many ppl have extensive iTunes content and it integrates right in. Where do you start with Andriod with all this? And remember that people on this forum are the techies...and don't represent 95% of people out there.
Kan-O-Z
