skunk
Mar 14, 06:55 PM
@skunk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC_Inter-IslandVery interesting. Thanks. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC_Inter-IslandVery interesting. Thanks. :)
rasmasyean
Apr 22, 11:47 PM
It's believed that the Higgs Boson exists but as yet there is no proof of its existence. Despite this respected physicists continue to try and prove its existence.
There are many things we believe in the existence of despite lack of tangible proof.
The Higgs Boson is something that is speculated to exist based on mathematical models and observation of other properties in theory. Therefore they try to "look for it" in order to confirm their models.
Einstein's special relativity was also speculated to exist based on mathematical models. And there was no way to observe that and "prove" that those phenomenon exist until modern equipment was invented...like GPS.
Even when Einstein derived that light travels in "particles", it explained a lot of things, but it isn't really until now that we use "photons" to bombard atoms to do quantum mechanical work...like solar panels. But they were derived to exist based on some other doctrine that works in real life (not just your mind).
There is a line between using an established doctrine to determine something can exist vs. "faith" in something that exists with no basis to draw upon other than some book written thousands of years ago...presumably. That's why it's called "faith".
There are many things we believe in the existence of despite lack of tangible proof.
The Higgs Boson is something that is speculated to exist based on mathematical models and observation of other properties in theory. Therefore they try to "look for it" in order to confirm their models.
Einstein's special relativity was also speculated to exist based on mathematical models. And there was no way to observe that and "prove" that those phenomenon exist until modern equipment was invented...like GPS.
Even when Einstein derived that light travels in "particles", it explained a lot of things, but it isn't really until now that we use "photons" to bombard atoms to do quantum mechanical work...like solar panels. But they were derived to exist based on some other doctrine that works in real life (not just your mind).
There is a line between using an established doctrine to determine something can exist vs. "faith" in something that exists with no basis to draw upon other than some book written thousands of years ago...presumably. That's why it's called "faith".
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:50 PM
So based on what was shown today, the iTV itself is not presenting itself as a recording solution, only playback.
If that is the case, then it still misses the mark because you cannot do the one thing that a PVR can do easily which is to pick up the remote and click record without getting out of your chair (assuming your Mac is in a different room than the TV).
That is by NO MEANS CERTAIN!!! Think about it: FrontRow's Remote will work through this device communicating with the desktop to load content. iTV itself connects directly to the web and to iTunes to get trailers, etc.
It is VERY feasible that a widget, or external USB device, of some sort will allow PVR (like elgato) to work via remote back to the software on the server. This would not be a difficult addon.
If that is the case, then it still misses the mark because you cannot do the one thing that a PVR can do easily which is to pick up the remote and click record without getting out of your chair (assuming your Mac is in a different room than the TV).
That is by NO MEANS CERTAIN!!! Think about it: FrontRow's Remote will work through this device communicating with the desktop to load content. iTV itself connects directly to the web and to iTunes to get trailers, etc.
It is VERY feasible that a widget, or external USB device, of some sort will allow PVR (like elgato) to work via remote back to the software on the server. This would not be a difficult addon.
Dagless
Apr 13, 04:51 AM
Hmm, could be good. I've been using an old Final Cut that I bought whilst in university. Worked just fine for me but I only edit game trailers on it. If FCPX is that cheap in the UK too then I might just have to get it.
Maybe.
Apple have been doing a lot of simplifying of late and I hope it doesn't lose any depth.
Maybe.
Apple have been doing a lot of simplifying of late and I hope it doesn't lose any depth.
iJohnHenry
Mar 14, 06:19 PM
We Brits always made do with punkah wallahs. Useful local employment opportunities and saves on polluting the atmosphere.
Ah, the glory days of the British Raj. LOL Thanks for the laugh.
Ah, the glory days of the British Raj. LOL Thanks for the laugh.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:19 PM
>>> Those who think this isn't a Tivo killer don't understand Tivo's plans.
Those that think this is a Tivo Killer don't understand economics, or why people buy Tivos.
Fort this to even be in the BALLPARK, it needs a Hard Dive. Needs to be Hi Def. That ain't happening at a 299.99 price tag. Still, people love the Tivo interface, so to get them, it's gonna have to offer MORE than Tivo- like an optical drive, a couple tuners. No WAY that is in this box and "not discolsed yet" at 299.
Tivo Killer. That's a killer joke, or Appleboy dreaming. Not close to reality.
You have got this all wrong.
The iTV is a winner for these reasons:
1) It does stream HD content -- Just because the iTunes content is NOT HD (it is near DVD) does not mean the DEVICE is not capable. In fact it uses the HDMI connector (as well as S and componet video) and the built in wireless AND gigabit ethernet insure the bandwidth is there for future HD content.
2) The iTV defeats TIVO in NOT NEEDING a Hard Drive. The PC or MAC Desktop BECOMES the Media Server.
3) Tuners: Numerous Third Solutions (elgato for example) exist right now to capture High Def video to the Mac and PC -- the stream is pauseable.
4) HD DVD -- With Blue Ray forthcoming, the Mac can still add DVD content to iTunes and then stream to iTV.
5) Multiple Streams/Multiple TVs -- iTV beats Tivo in that you can use multiple iTV's connected to a powerful desktop to service multiple monitors using the Front Row Interface.
6) The platform to expand: Apple's resources are superior to Tivo's and they will evolve beyond Tivo in the coming 2 years.
For a superior discussion of all these points visit CNET News:
http://news.com.com/2100-1041-6114835.html?tag=tb
DJO
Those that think this is a Tivo Killer don't understand economics, or why people buy Tivos.
Fort this to even be in the BALLPARK, it needs a Hard Dive. Needs to be Hi Def. That ain't happening at a 299.99 price tag. Still, people love the Tivo interface, so to get them, it's gonna have to offer MORE than Tivo- like an optical drive, a couple tuners. No WAY that is in this box and "not discolsed yet" at 299.
Tivo Killer. That's a killer joke, or Appleboy dreaming. Not close to reality.
You have got this all wrong.
The iTV is a winner for these reasons:
1) It does stream HD content -- Just because the iTunes content is NOT HD (it is near DVD) does not mean the DEVICE is not capable. In fact it uses the HDMI connector (as well as S and componet video) and the built in wireless AND gigabit ethernet insure the bandwidth is there for future HD content.
2) The iTV defeats TIVO in NOT NEEDING a Hard Drive. The PC or MAC Desktop BECOMES the Media Server.
3) Tuners: Numerous Third Solutions (elgato for example) exist right now to capture High Def video to the Mac and PC -- the stream is pauseable.
4) HD DVD -- With Blue Ray forthcoming, the Mac can still add DVD content to iTunes and then stream to iTV.
5) Multiple Streams/Multiple TVs -- iTV beats Tivo in that you can use multiple iTV's connected to a powerful desktop to service multiple monitors using the Front Row Interface.
6) The platform to expand: Apple's resources are superior to Tivo's and they will evolve beyond Tivo in the coming 2 years.
For a superior discussion of all these points visit CNET News:
http://news.com.com/2100-1041-6114835.html?tag=tb
DJO
ehoui
Apr 27, 06:47 PM
That's the line of thought of the type of agnostic who believes that we can't know (rather than someone who is undecided or doesn't know). But the all the speculation is fun, regardless.
It's no more "fun" than arguing that one knows that God exists or does not.
It's no more "fun" than arguing that one knows that God exists or does not.
leftPCbehind209
Apr 12, 10:37 PM
From what i gathered, if it doesn't, at the very least it transcodes them in the background as you've imported them, so you can work on them straight away.
But it might actually work natively. It was strongly suggested a lot more files could be imported natively, DSLR was mentioned.
Thanks, I figured as much too. Big improvement from before.
Also, way too many haters here on iMovie. For weddings, it has been so much easier to skim my clips using iMovie than FC. I don't need a whole lot to put a wedding together...iMovie has been perfect...it just lacked majorly in color correction.
But it might actually work natively. It was strongly suggested a lot more files could be imported natively, DSLR was mentioned.
Thanks, I figured as much too. Big improvement from before.
Also, way too many haters here on iMovie. For weddings, it has been so much easier to skim my clips using iMovie than FC. I don't need a whole lot to put a wedding together...iMovie has been perfect...it just lacked majorly in color correction.
topicolo
Jul 11, 10:27 PM
Sounds like these new Mac Pros are going to be expensive.
Satori
Apr 20, 05:12 PM
No big surprises there
neko girl
Mar 24, 11:55 PM
People can BELIEVE whatever they want.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
D4F
Apr 28, 09:28 AM
Maybe your employer would like to know the entire office is slacking and on MR instead of working...... nice way to burn company time with your pathetic pecker measuring.
Apparently this is what they call"productivity' these days so no wonder you get such a vast of "interesting" replies on obvious topics :D
Apparently this is what they call"productivity' these days so no wonder you get such a vast of "interesting" replies on obvious topics :D
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
iJohnHenry
Apr 15, 11:16 AM
Personally, I think it's great. However, they should be careful.
Moves like this have the potential to alienate customers.
As distinct from releasing new development in carefully contrived ways, or their price-point?? :p
Not a hope.
We are suckers, lick us.
Moves like this have the potential to alienate customers.
As distinct from releasing new development in carefully contrived ways, or their price-point?? :p
Not a hope.
We are suckers, lick us.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 14, 03:11 PM
Then, "burn cleanly" is a dubious concept. Even if you can clean it up, how much does that cost, how much energy dies it take to clean it up, and how much do you lose from the coal's potential energy? Industry touts clean coal, others claim the very concept is a myth, I am not sure who is closer to the practical reality of the situation.
"Clean coal" is 100% myth, marketing-speak invented by coal companies to fool people. At best, we can have "less dirty coal". Scrubbers, filters, and other "clean coal" technology reduce pollution but also efficiency, so the cost of the equipment is not the only tradeoff. The only truly "clean coal" is the stuf you don't burn.
With that being said, it is incumbent on us to use the lowest-polluting process for burning coal that is practicable, so "clean coal" technology is important in that sense. But the notion that we can some how burn coal "cleanly" is false.
"Clean coal" is 100% myth, marketing-speak invented by coal companies to fool people. At best, we can have "less dirty coal". Scrubbers, filters, and other "clean coal" technology reduce pollution but also efficiency, so the cost of the equipment is not the only tradeoff. The only truly "clean coal" is the stuf you don't burn.
With that being said, it is incumbent on us to use the lowest-polluting process for burning coal that is practicable, so "clean coal" technology is important in that sense. But the notion that we can some how burn coal "cleanly" is false.
matticus008
Mar 19, 05:43 PM
I could really care less about breaking some DRM law or "international copyright law". I would love to see them try to enforce it.
Just because a man can do a thing does not mean that he should do that thing. Whether or not you will get caught breaking the law is irrelevant to whether what you are doing is or is not legal. I can go to the supermarket or gas station and steal a bag of ice from outside without getting caught, but it doesn't mean what I'm doing is okay. You might say it's not a big deal--it only costs a dollar, and anyway the supermarket makes tons of money off the other things that they sell, and they probably don't deserve all that money because they underpay their employees.
Moral relativism and justification might make you feel fine about doing it, but it's still wrong and it's still illegal. If you don't care, that's your thing.
Just because a man can do a thing does not mean that he should do that thing. Whether or not you will get caught breaking the law is irrelevant to whether what you are doing is or is not legal. I can go to the supermarket or gas station and steal a bag of ice from outside without getting caught, but it doesn't mean what I'm doing is okay. You might say it's not a big deal--it only costs a dollar, and anyway the supermarket makes tons of money off the other things that they sell, and they probably don't deserve all that money because they underpay their employees.
Moral relativism and justification might make you feel fine about doing it, but it's still wrong and it's still illegal. If you don't care, that's your thing.
lilo777
Apr 20, 08:23 PM
I don't want to be a systems integrator. I like the Apple iOS ecosystem, and am glad when I want to use different products, it will be easy and seamless for me to migrate.
One of the significant advantages Apple has is that it is a much more considered decision to leave the Apple ecosystyem then it is to leave the Android environment.
Too bad Apple products are few and far between. Want LTE phone? Sorry. Want phone with bigger screen? Sorry. Want computer with USB 3.0 or BluRay? Sorry. I guess you trained yourself not to want anything Steve Jobs does not like. You talk about Apple profits so much, it's likely the more Apple charges you the happier you are.
You can scan it but if you are doing manual removal its because the scanners aren't finding it (but its still there). In these cases you have to hunt the file down manually, most security sites will post removal instructions but Windows OS allows for files to completely hide themselves even when booting into safe mode and having all files and folders as well as system files showing. A lot of files even though they are there can't be seen by command prompt either.
However, buy using a non windows OS you can always see these files so I'll plug the drive they are on into a mac or linux machine and locate the files on there.
Not all viruses hide files like that obviously but some do so if you ever do a manual removal and the file you are looking for isn't there (but you know for sure the machine is infected) then most likely you just have to pop out the drive and plug it into another OS.
I really wish MS would fix this and not let files be hidden, it would make my job MUCH easier.
Go to Folder Option, select View pane, check "Show hidden files, folders and drives". Click Apply. Windows worked like this for decades.
One of the significant advantages Apple has is that it is a much more considered decision to leave the Apple ecosystyem then it is to leave the Android environment.
Too bad Apple products are few and far between. Want LTE phone? Sorry. Want phone with bigger screen? Sorry. Want computer with USB 3.0 or BluRay? Sorry. I guess you trained yourself not to want anything Steve Jobs does not like. You talk about Apple profits so much, it's likely the more Apple charges you the happier you are.
You can scan it but if you are doing manual removal its because the scanners aren't finding it (but its still there). In these cases you have to hunt the file down manually, most security sites will post removal instructions but Windows OS allows for files to completely hide themselves even when booting into safe mode and having all files and folders as well as system files showing. A lot of files even though they are there can't be seen by command prompt either.
However, buy using a non windows OS you can always see these files so I'll plug the drive they are on into a mac or linux machine and locate the files on there.
Not all viruses hide files like that obviously but some do so if you ever do a manual removal and the file you are looking for isn't there (but you know for sure the machine is infected) then most likely you just have to pop out the drive and plug it into another OS.
I really wish MS would fix this and not let files be hidden, it would make my job MUCH easier.
Go to Folder Option, select View pane, check "Show hidden files, folders and drives". Click Apply. Windows worked like this for decades.
carfac
Sep 12, 06:02 PM
I do not see the point... What does this do that anyone could possiblky need???
300 bones for a glorified wi-fi widget is way off base. It is going to have a LOT more added to be worth that. Of course, we are talking about Apple, so overcharge is the rule, not the exception.
For my money, it's gonna have to be a REAL media center, and there is no way THAT ios gonna happen for 3 bills. Tivo today announced a HD-PVR for 8- that price range is acceptible, but it's gonna have to be HD, PVR, tunner, alkl that stuff. This box, worthless to me.
300 bones for a glorified wi-fi widget is way off base. It is going to have a LOT more added to be worth that. Of course, we are talking about Apple, so overcharge is the rule, not the exception.
For my money, it's gonna have to be a REAL media center, and there is no way THAT ios gonna happen for 3 bills. Tivo today announced a HD-PVR for 8- that price range is acceptible, but it's gonna have to be HD, PVR, tunner, alkl that stuff. This box, worthless to me.
ATD
Sep 26, 04:15 PM
2nd Story: Pixar announces that it is increasing its movie release schedule from one movie every two years to a movie every two days :)
I'm sure the studios are drooling for a 80 core model, it would make rendering a lot faster. I heard that Monsters Inc had single frames that took up to 90 hours to render. :eek:
I'm sure the studios are drooling for a 80 core model, it would make rendering a lot faster. I heard that Monsters Inc had single frames that took up to 90 hours to render. :eek:
Apple OC
Apr 23, 05:42 PM
exactly ^^^ you either believe or you don't
sblasl
Nov 2, 08:10 PM
Don't know if you saw this article, I thought I would provide it for your review.
http://reviews.cnet.com/Intel_Core_2_Extreme_QX6700/4505-3086_7-32136314.html?tag=cnetfd.mt
http://reviews.cnet.com/Intel_Core_2_Extreme_QX6700/4505-3086_7-32136314.html?tag=cnetfd.mt
FreeState
Mar 26, 02:03 AM
I'm commenting on arbitrary rules
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.
Marriage should be about more than love, the people should be fully committed to working through problems instead of divorce.
So why deny gay families this devotion that is needed, the commitment of marriage? Seems your reasoning is based out of malice if you really believe what you said.
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.
Marriage should be about more than love, the people should be fully committed to working through problems instead of divorce.
So why deny gay families this devotion that is needed, the commitment of marriage? Seems your reasoning is based out of malice if you really believe what you said.
techy298
May 2, 08:26 PM
If anyone has information on how to download this file, as well as an apple id, please visit this page (https://discussions.apple.com/message/15116673)
thanks
thanks
marmotmammal
Apr 12, 11:31 PM
A lot of speculation on this thread. I realize we're all impatient for more info. Apple said FCP X is a rewrite from the ground up. When that happens, it's a like a newborn, got to nurture it.
FCP X is 64-bit, the Suite isn't. FCP X is the future, with Lion and Thunderbolt, maybe an end to Rosetta and legacy apps. Sometimes got to dump the old to make way for the new.
Some folks might not like FCP X, stay with FCP 6 or 7. Apple (and anybody else who rewrites) takes big chances. Maybe some users will bail, go to A**** or A***. Some users will stick it out, ride along with FCP X from the inception and see where it goes. Maybe it'll get bigger, become a toddler and beyond.
FCP X is 64-bit, the Suite isn't. FCP X is the future, with Lion and Thunderbolt, maybe an end to Rosetta and legacy apps. Sometimes got to dump the old to make way for the new.
Some folks might not like FCP X, stay with FCP 6 or 7. Apple (and anybody else who rewrites) takes big chances. Maybe some users will bail, go to A**** or A***. Some users will stick it out, ride along with FCP X from the inception and see where it goes. Maybe it'll get bigger, become a toddler and beyond.
