sierra oscar
Nov 7, 02:24 AM
Apple is primarily an American company and they know that the news cycle will be heavy with Election Results. They can wait until next week and get more bang for the same buck. Europe (Australia, Asia, etc. ) will be just as happy with a Nov. 14 release as Nov. 7.
My response was more tongue in cheek - knowing full well the US-Centricity of Apple.
My response was more tongue in cheek - knowing full well the US-Centricity of Apple.
mscriv
Apr 7, 11:53 AM
The Bible says many good things and many bad things. I was highlighting some of the bad things to show how people do pick and choose. Consider Deuteronomy 13-
6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ...
9 ... thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God.
This is pretty clear, and no amount of fitting in with the rest of the Bible or whatever is going to help. Thankfully, people ignore this today. In other words, people apply a moral standard when reading the Bible. The Bible doesn't lead to morality.
*bold emphasis mine
I'm sorry friend, but you aren't understanding the full context of what you are reading. The old testament, in this case Deuteronomy, does not stand alone, but is correctly interpreted in light of the new testament and the fulfillment of the law that Christ accomplished through the incarnation and his death.
God gave the law in the old testament to serve a specific purpose at a specific time to a specific people. From a theological stand point it's purpose was to show that no amount of work or good behavior can bring one to God. The law serves to highlight our separation from God in that none of us can measure up. The wages of sin are death and thus under the law death was the punishment. Under the new covenant Christ's death has paid the price of sin and we no longer need to live under the law.
So you see, you are guilty of doing what it is you are saying that others are doing. You are picking/choosing a verse out of the old testament and presenting it as if it was a universal command to all believers for all time.
It's like when you tell a child to play in the front yard but not to cross the street. You are giving them a specific command for a specific time with a specific purpose in mind (their safety). It would be silly to say that your intention was for that child to never cross a street in their life. They are forever forbidden from leaving the front yard because at one point you told them not to cross the street.
I'm not trying to pick on you or attack you personally, I'm simply trying to help you better understand. People often make the error of thinking the Bible is written like an instruction manual or a recipie book. It's not that simple. You must read it in context and it's context is the entirety of the 66 books contained within it. Additionally, the books are written in different genres of literature and thus various literary tools are used to correctly interpret them.
For you to quote Deuteronomy as evidence that the Bible "literally" tells believers today they should stone people is incorrect. It's also silly to say "thanfully people today ignore this". This statement highlights your misunderstanding of what you are quoting. Believers don't need to ignore a law/command that was never intended for them. Do you ignore horse and buggy traffic laws that were written centuries ago? You don't need to, those laws were not written for you, but for a specific people at a specific time.
Much of the old testament is narrative historical literature and it allows believers to understand how God has worked throughout history to reveal himself. To take those narratives and claim they are commands for today's people is both silly and a misrepresentation of what the Bible actually says.
@mscriv
I think that my objection to a book like this for atheists is that there is no reason to believe that the author of the book's morals or opinions are anymore important or better than anyone else's.
I'm disagreeing with barkomatic (and do understand what he is saying). I'm saying religion does not provide the basis for modern morality. I'm saying a structured moral code isn't necessary- it is already there as it is in part innate and in part social.
I understand these difference of opinion and thank you for your clarification.
6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ...
9 ... thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God.
This is pretty clear, and no amount of fitting in with the rest of the Bible or whatever is going to help. Thankfully, people ignore this today. In other words, people apply a moral standard when reading the Bible. The Bible doesn't lead to morality.
*bold emphasis mine
I'm sorry friend, but you aren't understanding the full context of what you are reading. The old testament, in this case Deuteronomy, does not stand alone, but is correctly interpreted in light of the new testament and the fulfillment of the law that Christ accomplished through the incarnation and his death.
God gave the law in the old testament to serve a specific purpose at a specific time to a specific people. From a theological stand point it's purpose was to show that no amount of work or good behavior can bring one to God. The law serves to highlight our separation from God in that none of us can measure up. The wages of sin are death and thus under the law death was the punishment. Under the new covenant Christ's death has paid the price of sin and we no longer need to live under the law.
So you see, you are guilty of doing what it is you are saying that others are doing. You are picking/choosing a verse out of the old testament and presenting it as if it was a universal command to all believers for all time.
It's like when you tell a child to play in the front yard but not to cross the street. You are giving them a specific command for a specific time with a specific purpose in mind (their safety). It would be silly to say that your intention was for that child to never cross a street in their life. They are forever forbidden from leaving the front yard because at one point you told them not to cross the street.
I'm not trying to pick on you or attack you personally, I'm simply trying to help you better understand. People often make the error of thinking the Bible is written like an instruction manual or a recipie book. It's not that simple. You must read it in context and it's context is the entirety of the 66 books contained within it. Additionally, the books are written in different genres of literature and thus various literary tools are used to correctly interpret them.
For you to quote Deuteronomy as evidence that the Bible "literally" tells believers today they should stone people is incorrect. It's also silly to say "thanfully people today ignore this". This statement highlights your misunderstanding of what you are quoting. Believers don't need to ignore a law/command that was never intended for them. Do you ignore horse and buggy traffic laws that were written centuries ago? You don't need to, those laws were not written for you, but for a specific people at a specific time.
Much of the old testament is narrative historical literature and it allows believers to understand how God has worked throughout history to reveal himself. To take those narratives and claim they are commands for today's people is both silly and a misrepresentation of what the Bible actually says.
@mscriv
I think that my objection to a book like this for atheists is that there is no reason to believe that the author of the book's morals or opinions are anymore important or better than anyone else's.
I'm disagreeing with barkomatic (and do understand what he is saying). I'm saying religion does not provide the basis for modern morality. I'm saying a structured moral code isn't necessary- it is already there as it is in part innate and in part social.
I understand these difference of opinion and thank you for your clarification.
green86
Mar 29, 11:08 AM
Something tells me that one still using a 3GS isn't likely a must have "latest and greatest" kind of consumer. I had a 3GS which I bought on Day One. ATT let nearly everyone upgrade early to the 4 so I did. It was a no brainer. Why you stuck it out w/ the 3GS I can't say but to be bitching and moaning Apple doesn't upgrade fast enough like you are is silly. If you only upgrade every 3 years what difference would more frequent upgrades possibly make in your life? I think you protesteth too much.
Something tells me your drinking Apple koolaid.
I had the original iPhone when it was less then two months old, and bought the 3gs shortly after it's release too.
Not that it is any of your business, but I upgrade in my equipment in cycles. Instead of the craptastic iPhone 4, I bought a Sony Nex-5 with three lenses and a MacBook Pro i7 HR. This year it's time for a new phone. Soon.
It was a nobrainer for me not to upgrade to a POS. Hopefully they will get it right.. on time this time. I'm not bitching and moaning about slower release cycles, it's a stupid idea when a company like Apple has the ability to do the opposite. Maybe your ok waiting longer for old tech... ever wonder why PPC was ditched? But you must be happy with your PowerBook.
Its ok though. I used to be like you, taking opinions & shots at Apple personally. You might get out of it IF your smart enough.... Maybe not though in that case though.
Something tells me your drinking Apple koolaid.
I had the original iPhone when it was less then two months old, and bought the 3gs shortly after it's release too.
Not that it is any of your business, but I upgrade in my equipment in cycles. Instead of the craptastic iPhone 4, I bought a Sony Nex-5 with three lenses and a MacBook Pro i7 HR. This year it's time for a new phone. Soon.
It was a nobrainer for me not to upgrade to a POS. Hopefully they will get it right.. on time this time. I'm not bitching and moaning about slower release cycles, it's a stupid idea when a company like Apple has the ability to do the opposite. Maybe your ok waiting longer for old tech... ever wonder why PPC was ditched? But you must be happy with your PowerBook.
Its ok though. I used to be like you, taking opinions & shots at Apple personally. You might get out of it IF your smart enough.... Maybe not though in that case though.
Groovey
Nov 8, 06:03 AM
Germany down too.
ipoppy
Mar 29, 03:27 PM
Ok..all cool here...but they need to push REALLY hard with speech recognition software in order to be successful. At least some some possibility for software to learn your accent etc.
bwintx
Sep 22, 02:12 PM
Wal-Mart is a massive contributor to officeholders in both major U.S. political parties, but especially those in the Republican Party -- so anyone who seriously thinks the company will be given pause by the probable illegality of its proposed actions is dreaming.
Funkatronic
Mar 7, 12:03 AM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5295/5502889504_30633d9851.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yohul/5502889504/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yohul/5502889504/) by yohul (http://www.flickr.com/people/yohul/), on Flickr
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yohul/5502889504/) by yohul (http://www.flickr.com/people/yohul/), on Flickr
Nomadski
Nov 28, 04:43 PM
Why all the focus on Bach in this thread?
Beatles>Jesus>Beethoven>[insert 40 or 50 names here]
>Bach
Beatles>Jesus>Beethoven>[insert 40 or 50 names here]
>Bach
roland.g
Sep 5, 09:17 AM
Guys,
Remember it's an Apple Media Event. It just means that Steve is going to intro the iPod Hi-Fi in all Black and tell us it sounds even better than before.
Remember it's an Apple Media Event. It just means that Steve is going to intro the iPod Hi-Fi in all Black and tell us it sounds even better than before.
JRM PowerPod
Aug 3, 08:32 PM
BEST POST EVER FROM THAT INTRO OF THE iPod
love poems for girlfriend.
love poems to a girlfriend.
love poems for a girlfriend
love poems to a girlfriend
Love Poems For A Girlfriend
i miss you love poems.
love poems for a girlfriend
love poems for girlfriend.
love poems for a girlfriend
hob
Aug 24, 01:54 PM
Ok, my earlier exclamation may have been premature. I'm also having problems - the battery for my 12" PB is in the range on both the press release and the apple support site, but when I put all the numbers in, it says "no mate" - seems a lot of people are getting this?
bmorris
Apr 10, 07:54 PM
Only specific Radio Shack's are selling them, and fast.
Most of them can take your number and call you when they are placing more orders.
They will call you and ask for you to either come to the store now and pay or pay at the store when the iPad comes in. If you pay in advance they will ship the iPad to your door. It would take 2-3 days for delivery, faster than Apple's website.
Most of them can take your number and call you when they are placing more orders.
They will call you and ask for you to either come to the store now and pay or pay at the store when the iPad comes in. If you pay in advance they will ship the iPad to your door. It would take 2-3 days for delivery, faster than Apple's website.
Popeye206
Jan 11, 04:06 PM
Hummm... I like the iPlane myself! :-)
Maybe Steve is cooking breakfast for the keynote? Really... it's probably a really thin, ultra portable and muti-touch version of the all new Airport Ultra Nano! :D Ohhhh.... I crack myself up sometimes! LOL!
Darn it! Is it Tuesday yet so we can just get this over with???? :-)
Maybe Steve is cooking breakfast for the keynote? Really... it's probably a really thin, ultra portable and muti-touch version of the all new Airport Ultra Nano! :D Ohhhh.... I crack myself up sometimes! LOL!
Darn it! Is it Tuesday yet so we can just get this over with???? :-)
DJMastaWes
Aug 3, 02:50 PM
After it's done I presume.
That sucks.. that's like around 5:00PM my time.
That sucks.. that's like around 5:00PM my time.
Chundles
Sep 6, 08:55 AM
1.83GHz 17" iMac - $1549
2.00GHz 17" iMac - $1849
2.16GHz 20" iMac - $2299
2.16GHz 24" iMac - $2999
3GB RAM upgrade is $1400 :eek:
That's a bit higher than I'd thought for the 24" model, I was thinking about $2599 but ah well.
Off to check out edu prices.
EDIT - Edu prices more reasonable:
1.83GHz 17" iMac - $1393.70
2.00GHz 17" iMac - $1664.30
2.16GHz 20" iMac - $2069.10
2.16GHz 24" iMac - $2699.40
2.00GHz 17" iMac - $1849
2.16GHz 20" iMac - $2299
2.16GHz 24" iMac - $2999
3GB RAM upgrade is $1400 :eek:
That's a bit higher than I'd thought for the 24" model, I was thinking about $2599 but ah well.
Off to check out edu prices.
EDIT - Edu prices more reasonable:
1.83GHz 17" iMac - $1393.70
2.00GHz 17" iMac - $1664.30
2.16GHz 20" iMac - $2069.10
2.16GHz 24" iMac - $2699.40
Koodauw
Sep 12, 02:07 PM
Just ordered the black 8GB. Was tempted by the silver, but bigger and blacker won out.
sunfast
Aug 8, 09:29 AM
Also I think FrontRow will be bluetooth enabled (with new remote) when Leopard ships so MacPros can use it.
Provided they added the BT option.....
Provided they added the BT option.....
psychspirit
Sep 4, 10:55 PM
nooo. im not gonna have enough money for another ipod.
dam it. oh wells. ill give myself a month to save up. . .
other than that. ill enjoy some tea that i make
Same here.:o
dam it. oh wells. ill give myself a month to save up. . .
other than that. ill enjoy some tea that i make
Same here.:o
i hate phones
Mar 21, 03:52 PM
I somehow doubt its true, but its a nice story.
When Ive returned a product, they have never asked for my name or address, and if I didnt give them my email address, there is no way they could contact me.
I would assume most people pay for these things by credit/debit cards and apple would therefore be able to obtain your info...
When Ive returned a product, they have never asked for my name or address, and if I didnt give them my email address, there is no way they could contact me.
I would assume most people pay for these things by credit/debit cards and apple would therefore be able to obtain your info...
tbobmccoy
Mar 21, 03:47 PM
A Phat iPod Touch sounds like a great product to me. Integrate an iPad touch with limited flash storage and a iPad Hard Drive. Call it the Phat iPod Touch..:eek:
Hard drives would not be good AT ALL for an iPod Touch. Apps depend on the instant access that flash memory allows for using data, so a hard drive would slow the whole process up, especially on the processor size. Plus, moving objects are exactly why they moved to flash: too fragile and much easier to destroy. Nope, the hard drive based music player has seen its day in the sun and is now going off into the distance. It has a good run, but like the floppy before it (didn't flash memory also kill that too?), its just not good enough for today.
Hard drives would not be good AT ALL for an iPod Touch. Apps depend on the instant access that flash memory allows for using data, so a hard drive would slow the whole process up, especially on the processor size. Plus, moving objects are exactly why they moved to flash: too fragile and much easier to destroy. Nope, the hard drive based music player has seen its day in the sun and is now going off into the distance. It has a good run, but like the floppy before it (didn't flash memory also kill that too?), its just not good enough for today.
Mitthrawnuruodo
Sep 4, 08:25 AM
Do a little research on eBay and see how many of these are listed and sold per hour. These cheap Chinese imports are not tracked in overall sales figures of MP3 players. I don't know what kind of market share they have.1) I don't use eBay - but how many iPods are sold there?
2) How many iPods are sold - through regular outlets - every hour?
3) iPods are made in China
4) If you don't even know the market share how do you know they are threatening iPod sales?
2) How many iPods are sold - through regular outlets - every hour?
3) iPods are made in China
4) If you don't even know the market share how do you know they are threatening iPod sales?
digitalbiker
Sep 22, 04:44 PM
Are Apple any different?
All their product is made in Asia, I'm sure they bully their suppliers to get the best prices and there have been question marks over the working conditions in the factories they use.
Everyone wants lower prices and better quality. A lot of people feel guilty due to the effects this has on other people, but not guilty enough to actually stop shopping at the cheapest shops.
I agree. Apple and Wal-mart are just companies. They are not evil or benevolent. They compete in a very competitive market and can in no way be considered monopolies.
Wal-Mart doesn't drive local mom & pop companies out of business. The people who shop at Wal-Mart drive the local mom & pop business away. If Wal-Mart is so evil, bad to employees, sells rotten product, why is it that so many people shop there?
Sure Wal-Mart pressures suppliers to lower their price, so does everyone else. That is why prices drop when supply is high or demand is down. Sure Wal-Mart puts pressure on local business. So does every business that competes in that market including mail order.
If the local business can't stay afloat in their market then it just means that customers are choosing for whatever reason to go somewhere else.
I don't particularly care for Wal-Mart myself and I don't shop there except for as a convience for the most mundane products. But I can't stand all this whining! This is a free world. If you are a consumer, shop where you choose and those companies will reap the reward. If you are a supplier supply to who you wish, if you have a great product it will sell. If you are a competitor, do whatever you can to keep prices low, quality high, customer satisfaction high, and you will stay in business.
What's the big deal!:rolleyes:
All their product is made in Asia, I'm sure they bully their suppliers to get the best prices and there have been question marks over the working conditions in the factories they use.
Everyone wants lower prices and better quality. A lot of people feel guilty due to the effects this has on other people, but not guilty enough to actually stop shopping at the cheapest shops.
I agree. Apple and Wal-mart are just companies. They are not evil or benevolent. They compete in a very competitive market and can in no way be considered monopolies.
Wal-Mart doesn't drive local mom & pop companies out of business. The people who shop at Wal-Mart drive the local mom & pop business away. If Wal-Mart is so evil, bad to employees, sells rotten product, why is it that so many people shop there?
Sure Wal-Mart pressures suppliers to lower their price, so does everyone else. That is why prices drop when supply is high or demand is down. Sure Wal-Mart puts pressure on local business. So does every business that competes in that market including mail order.
If the local business can't stay afloat in their market then it just means that customers are choosing for whatever reason to go somewhere else.
I don't particularly care for Wal-Mart myself and I don't shop there except for as a convience for the most mundane products. But I can't stand all this whining! This is a free world. If you are a consumer, shop where you choose and those companies will reap the reward. If you are a supplier supply to who you wish, if you have a great product it will sell. If you are a competitor, do whatever you can to keep prices low, quality high, customer satisfaction high, and you will stay in business.
What's the big deal!:rolleyes:
puckhead193
Oct 15, 04:02 PM
HAHAHA, i'm guessing Gates never had his way with the ladies ;)
"NOOO I don't want to talk to that girl and ask for her phone number... instead i'll beam over mine number to her"
No more than sucking on someone's tongue. :)
hahahahahahahaha
"NOOO I don't want to talk to that girl and ask for her phone number... instead i'll beam over mine number to her"
No more than sucking on someone's tongue. :)
hahahahahahahaha
Edge100
Nov 27, 01:58 PM
Correction, They are ALL mixed well. the Separation was done on purpose, and frankly it is brilliant, and I dont find it Annoying in the slightest. (unless i am using one of those cassette adaptors in my car and it has developed a problem and only puts the left side through both speakers. yes, thats happened to me)
I honestly can't wrap my head around anyone complaining about the way those were mixed. I wish more albums these days were recorded with more experimentation on this level. i would make a huge stink if anyone Remixed those albums, and I certainly wouldnt buy them. hey why not just re-record them? george and john are dead, but we could have clapton do georges parts, and john's son Sean do his! bet we could get it to sound "Better"
If you think the stereo mixes are good, you NEED to find a copy of the mono mixes. They are much better, and much more in keeping with the original vision of the songs. The Beatles (and Martin/Emerick/others) largely ignored the stereo mixes until the late 60s' because it wasn't a popular format. In some cases, the mono mixes are drastically different than the stereo. And THAT was the way the songs were originally intended.
The word "remix" has taken on a bad connotation lately. The songs shouldn't be "rearranged" (as is the common understanding of "remix"), but the actual elements need re-balancing, mostly in the area of placement in the stereo field (as others have pointed out). Plus the actual sonic quality of the CDs is poor, and the mixes, as they stand today, need to be remastered in higher quality digital.
I honestly can't wrap my head around anyone complaining about the way those were mixed. I wish more albums these days were recorded with more experimentation on this level. i would make a huge stink if anyone Remixed those albums, and I certainly wouldnt buy them. hey why not just re-record them? george and john are dead, but we could have clapton do georges parts, and john's son Sean do his! bet we could get it to sound "Better"
If you think the stereo mixes are good, you NEED to find a copy of the mono mixes. They are much better, and much more in keeping with the original vision of the songs. The Beatles (and Martin/Emerick/others) largely ignored the stereo mixes until the late 60s' because it wasn't a popular format. In some cases, the mono mixes are drastically different than the stereo. And THAT was the way the songs were originally intended.
The word "remix" has taken on a bad connotation lately. The songs shouldn't be "rearranged" (as is the common understanding of "remix"), but the actual elements need re-balancing, mostly in the area of placement in the stereo field (as others have pointed out). Plus the actual sonic quality of the CDs is poor, and the mixes, as they stand today, need to be remastered in higher quality digital.
No comments:
Post a Comment