shannonbrooke
May 5, 03:45 AM
I don't really think it's a big deal to have to connect your iDevice to your computer to update firmware every so often. You're going to have to connect it to sync anyways. However, I'll probably use this feature. That is, if it'll be available for AT&T customers?
clayj
Sep 22, 07:54 PM
Eff Wal-Mart.
And if you shop at Wal-Mart when other choices are available, then eff you, too.
People think the Antichrist will be a single person. I tell you that it's very possible that the collective amount of evil within the organization known as Wal-Mart qualifies it for Antichrist status.
(In case you are still wondering, I don't much care for Wal-Mart.)
And if you shop at Wal-Mart when other choices are available, then eff you, too.
People think the Antichrist will be a single person. I tell you that it's very possible that the collective amount of evil within the organization known as Wal-Mart qualifies it for Antichrist status.
(In case you are still wondering, I don't much care for Wal-Mart.)
fivepoint
Mar 29, 08:26 AM
I don't know about that. Check out #2 ...
If the United States were under immediate threat, do you really think the president would have to write a report to congress "setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"?
As for Rand Paul's objections, it's so geopolitically and historically ignorant, it's beyond contempt. It's been hilarious watching the right run around to find a consistent line of attack on this. Congress hasn't declared war since the 1940s.
This is a multilateral action with the backing of a Security Council resolution. The Daily Telegraph's rantings about Al Qaeda are little more than Gaddafi propaganda.
As for US interests, many of you including the racist fringe christianist Pauls, are not connecting the dots:
The entire point of this is in the long-term. Apart from denying a victorious Gaddafi an opportunity to create trouble to his neighbours and destabilise the region, it is to provide support for popular uprisings in order to deny radicalism the oxygen it needs.
It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent morality no longer matters, only justifying war and protecting the political future of the first black president.
The constitution was written in regards to war specifically to stifle the power of the president which the founders knew would be more predisposed to war, and to put the power in the hands of the people via congress. In fact, as Tom Woods recently put it...
...here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article � whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.
If I�m so wrong, this challenge should be a breeze. If you evade this challenge, or call me names, or make peripheral arguments instead, I will take that as an admission of defeat.
We can argue all day long about whether or not war with Libya was justified, you'll talk about the threat of mass killings, I'll talk about the tens of other nations which are in similar circumstances which receive NO American aid and the logical fallacy of suggesting it's our role to play in picking sides on every civil war around the world... but the point here is that it's straight up unconstitutional, and CANDIDATE Obama (you know, the one you voted for) completely agrees. But for some reason, now that he's president you think it's ok for him to switch his views 180 degrees and still are unwilling to admit you agree with Rand Paul even though his position is far more consistent with candidate Obama's. Sounds awfully hypocritical.
This was my impression as well. If correct, Obama has no business doing what he's done--right, wrong, paid for or not. Personally, I'm glad somebody's stopping Gaddafi from acting unchecked--but that doesn't excuse circumventing the constitution to do so.
Yes.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
Yes.
Uh yeah. Saw that on Meet the Press. Paul is only telling a half-truth. Gates went on to say that other NATO countries felt they have a vital interest in Libya, and I think we all understand how the NATO treaty works. Whether or not you believe or agree with that, the fact is that Paul misrepresented Gates' statement.
I don't want to be the one to tell you, but Americans hold no allegiance to NATO or to the United Nations. In addition, no treaties or otherwise passed by these two organizations have any legal effect on our sovereign nation. The UN or NATO passing a resolution to engage in military action does not serve as an ALTERNATIVE to a declaration of war by the U.S. congress.
Also, I do not believe his position was misrepresented. If you watched Gates' testimony before the war, you'll see that he was dragged kicking and screaming in to this war. He is of the strong opinion that this was a bad idea and that Libya is not vital to U.S. interests. His comment that the 'mid-east' is part of our national interest was an extremely long reach in a pathetic attempt to find some sort of overlap between his position and the administration he works for. I'd say Paul's analysis of Gates' position is much better than any analysis which suggests he thinks the war is justified.
If the United States were under immediate threat, do you really think the president would have to write a report to congress "setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"?
As for Rand Paul's objections, it's so geopolitically and historically ignorant, it's beyond contempt. It's been hilarious watching the right run around to find a consistent line of attack on this. Congress hasn't declared war since the 1940s.
This is a multilateral action with the backing of a Security Council resolution. The Daily Telegraph's rantings about Al Qaeda are little more than Gaddafi propaganda.
As for US interests, many of you including the racist fringe christianist Pauls, are not connecting the dots:
The entire point of this is in the long-term. Apart from denying a victorious Gaddafi an opportunity to create trouble to his neighbours and destabilise the region, it is to provide support for popular uprisings in order to deny radicalism the oxygen it needs.
It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent morality no longer matters, only justifying war and protecting the political future of the first black president.
The constitution was written in regards to war specifically to stifle the power of the president which the founders knew would be more predisposed to war, and to put the power in the hands of the people via congress. In fact, as Tom Woods recently put it...
...here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article � whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.
If I�m so wrong, this challenge should be a breeze. If you evade this challenge, or call me names, or make peripheral arguments instead, I will take that as an admission of defeat.
We can argue all day long about whether or not war with Libya was justified, you'll talk about the threat of mass killings, I'll talk about the tens of other nations which are in similar circumstances which receive NO American aid and the logical fallacy of suggesting it's our role to play in picking sides on every civil war around the world... but the point here is that it's straight up unconstitutional, and CANDIDATE Obama (you know, the one you voted for) completely agrees. But for some reason, now that he's president you think it's ok for him to switch his views 180 degrees and still are unwilling to admit you agree with Rand Paul even though his position is far more consistent with candidate Obama's. Sounds awfully hypocritical.
This was my impression as well. If correct, Obama has no business doing what he's done--right, wrong, paid for or not. Personally, I'm glad somebody's stopping Gaddafi from acting unchecked--but that doesn't excuse circumventing the constitution to do so.
Yes.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
Yes.
Uh yeah. Saw that on Meet the Press. Paul is only telling a half-truth. Gates went on to say that other NATO countries felt they have a vital interest in Libya, and I think we all understand how the NATO treaty works. Whether or not you believe or agree with that, the fact is that Paul misrepresented Gates' statement.
I don't want to be the one to tell you, but Americans hold no allegiance to NATO or to the United Nations. In addition, no treaties or otherwise passed by these two organizations have any legal effect on our sovereign nation. The UN or NATO passing a resolution to engage in military action does not serve as an ALTERNATIVE to a declaration of war by the U.S. congress.
Also, I do not believe his position was misrepresented. If you watched Gates' testimony before the war, you'll see that he was dragged kicking and screaming in to this war. He is of the strong opinion that this was a bad idea and that Libya is not vital to U.S. interests. His comment that the 'mid-east' is part of our national interest was an extremely long reach in a pathetic attempt to find some sort of overlap between his position and the administration he works for. I'd say Paul's analysis of Gates' position is much better than any analysis which suggests he thinks the war is justified.
TheMacFeed
Oct 10, 03:46 PM
http://i.imgur.com/qOb1z.jpg
Hows Reach? :D
Hows Reach? :D
lharvest
Mar 10, 01:19 PM
Incoming...
Phishin' it
Nov 8, 08:55 AM
Store still down? Annoying or what?
steezy1337
Oct 25, 10:46 AM
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/8576/imagett.jpg
Left to Right : HP 2009v 20" monitor, HK Soundsticks II, 2.4GHz 20" iMac, Shure SRH240 Headphones, Beats By Dre. Studio Headphones, Magic Mouse, 32GB WiFi iPad + Universal Dock
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/2125/imagexe.jpg
iPhone 4 Dock, Sony Bravia 32" 1080p Tv, Sky (getting Sky+HD after Xmas) Xbox 360
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/5025/imagetds.jpg
I spent some time today trying to sort out the multitude of cables that were beginning to voertake the underneath of my desk, i forgot to take some before pictures but here it is now
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/7063/imagexel.jpg
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/7720/imagehri.jpg
I've also got a Black Macbook on its way at some point that i'm going to use to run plex through the tv so i'll update you when it arrives =D
Left to Right : HP 2009v 20" monitor, HK Soundsticks II, 2.4GHz 20" iMac, Shure SRH240 Headphones, Beats By Dre. Studio Headphones, Magic Mouse, 32GB WiFi iPad + Universal Dock
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/2125/imagexe.jpg
iPhone 4 Dock, Sony Bravia 32" 1080p Tv, Sky (getting Sky+HD after Xmas) Xbox 360
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/5025/imagetds.jpg
I spent some time today trying to sort out the multitude of cables that were beginning to voertake the underneath of my desk, i forgot to take some before pictures but here it is now
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/7063/imagexel.jpg
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/7720/imagehri.jpg
I've also got a Black Macbook on its way at some point that i'm going to use to run plex through the tv so i'll update you when it arrives =D
spicyapple
Oct 15, 08:15 PM
A little off topic but would = Ctrl-Alt-Delete on a Mac?
Command+Option+ESC or holding down the Power button.
Command+Option+ESC or holding down the Power button.
MonkeySee....
Nov 24, 06:41 AM
I know perfectly well who Bach is (and, in fact, who Bach were) and comparing him with the Beatles is musical stupidity at his best.
If my dad happened to have met John Lennon in Liverpool, he could have been in the Beatles too. Overhyped experimental infants who gave the world a little over five decent songs.
So has Madonna.
Wow. Just, Wow! :confused:
I agree with the previous poster who said that The Beatles are underrated. I didn't think they were but i do now.
If my dad happened to have met John Lennon in Liverpool, he could have been in the Beatles too. Overhyped experimental infants who gave the world a little over five decent songs.
So has Madonna.
Wow. Just, Wow! :confused:
I agree with the previous poster who said that The Beatles are underrated. I didn't think they were but i do now.
rstansby
Mar 18, 02:48 PM
If I could replace my iPod classic with a 120GB iPod Touch I would do it in a heartbeat. To me the only think the classic has on the touch is storage size. In every other way the Touch is much better.
valkraider
Nov 13, 06:14 PM
an established global business like Facebook
that f_ing breaks their sh_t every other day.
Seriously, facebook is constantly screwing stuff up. I HATE that all my damn friends use it so I am FORCED to use it to communicate with them only because to most of them anymore facebook=internet.
facebook can't even get chronological order right...
that f_ing breaks their sh_t every other day.
Seriously, facebook is constantly screwing stuff up. I HATE that all my damn friends use it so I am FORCED to use it to communicate with them only because to most of them anymore facebook=internet.
facebook can't even get chronological order right...
X2468
Mar 29, 10:18 PM
Maybe it's time to upgrade the screen size to get more under the hood (and stick the antenna back in there).
Precisely.
I hope they widen it by 2mm so there's room for a modest bezel, instead of that ultra thin example seen a short while ago. There's got to be a little room for a case to overlap the front edges a bit.
If they put the antenna back inside, then the case edges can be shaped for style and comfort. The iPhone 4's edges are just too plain looking. Other than proving they could make a fragile glass phone, it's a pain to hold securely if you're active.
I truly believe this could be a significant upgrade over the 4 if Apples willing to put out the effort.
Just look at the terrific job they did with the new MBA's. If they put the same effort into the next iPhone it will be an incredible model that will get lots of positive press.
Precisely.
I hope they widen it by 2mm so there's room for a modest bezel, instead of that ultra thin example seen a short while ago. There's got to be a little room for a case to overlap the front edges a bit.
If they put the antenna back inside, then the case edges can be shaped for style and comfort. The iPhone 4's edges are just too plain looking. Other than proving they could make a fragile glass phone, it's a pain to hold securely if you're active.
I truly believe this could be a significant upgrade over the 4 if Apples willing to put out the effort.
Just look at the terrific job they did with the new MBA's. If they put the same effort into the next iPhone it will be an incredible model that will get lots of positive press.
citizenzen
Mar 15, 02:08 PM
Top 10 defense contractors employ over 1 million people. If you cut their federal contracts by 40%, how many people will they have to lay off, 40%? 30% 20%. Do the math. Defense cuts need to be slow and steady over many years so we can absorb these workers.
Excerpts (http://mondediplo.com/2008/02/05military) from Le Monde Diplomatique, february 2008 ...
Why the US has really gone broke
Global confidence in the US economy has reached zero, as was proved by last month’s stock market meltdown. But there is an enormous anomaly in the US economy above and beyond the subprime mortgage crisis, the housing bubble and the prospect of recession: 60 years of misallocation of resources, and borrowings, to the establishment and maintenance of a military-industrial complex as the basis of the nation’s economic life.
There are three broad aspects to the US debt crisis. First, in the current fiscal year (2008) we are spending insane amounts of money on “defence” projects that bear no relation to the national security of the US. We are also keeping the income tax burdens on the richest segment of the population at strikingly low levels.
Second, we continue to believe that we can compensate for the accelerating erosion of our base and our loss of jobs to foreign countries through massive military expenditures — “military Keynesianism” (which I discuss in detail in my book Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic). By that, I mean the mistaken belief that public policies focused on frequent wars, huge expenditures on weapons and munitions, and large standing armies can indefinitely sustain a wealthy capitalist economy. The opposite is actually true.
Third, in our devotion to militarism (despite our limited resources), we are failing to invest in our social infrastructure and other requirements for the long-term health of the US. These are what economists call opportunity costs, things not done because we spent our money on something else. Our public education system has deteriorated alarmingly. We have failed to provide health care to all our citizens and neglected our responsibilities as the world’s number one polluter. Most important, we have lost our competitiveness as a manufacturer for civilian needs, an infinitely more efficient use of scarce resources than arms manufacturing.
Fiscal disaster
It is virtually impossible to overstate the profligacy of what our government spends on the military. The Department of Defense’s planned expenditures for the fiscal year 2008 are larger than all other nations’ military budgets combined. The supplementary budget to pay for the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not part of the official defence budget, is itself larger than the combined military budgets of Russia and China. Defence-related spending for fiscal 2008 will exceed $1 trillion for the first time in history. The US has become the largest single seller of arms and munitions to other nations on Earth. Leaving out President Bush’s two on-going wars, defence spending has doubled since the mid-1990s. The defence budget for fiscal 2008 is the largest since the second world war.
But there is much more. In an attempt to disguise the true size of the US military empire, the government has long hidden major military-related expenditures in departments other than Defense. For example, $23.4bn for the Department of Energy goes towards developing and maintaining nuclear warheads; and $25.3bn in the Department of State budget is spent on foreign military assistance (primarily for Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Republic, Egypt and Pakistan). Another $1.03bn outside the official Department of Defense budget is now needed for recruitment and re-enlistment incentives for the overstretched US military, up from a mere $174m in when the war in Iraq began. The Department of Veterans Affairs currently gets at least $75.7bn, 50% of it for the long-term care of the most seriously injured among the 28,870 soldiers so far wounded in Iraq and 1,708 in Afghanistan. The amount is universally derided as inadequate. Another $46.4bn goes to the Department of Homeland Security.
Missing from this compilation is $1.9bn to the Department of Justice for the paramilitary activities of the FBI; $38.5bn to the Department of the Treasury for the Military Retirement Fund; $7.6bn for the military-related activities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and well over $200bn in interest for past debt-financed defence outlays. This brings US spending for its military establishment during the current fiscal year, conservatively calculated, to at least $1.1 trillion.
More to follow.
Excerpts (http://mondediplo.com/2008/02/05military) from Le Monde Diplomatique, february 2008 ...
Why the US has really gone broke
Global confidence in the US economy has reached zero, as was proved by last month’s stock market meltdown. But there is an enormous anomaly in the US economy above and beyond the subprime mortgage crisis, the housing bubble and the prospect of recession: 60 years of misallocation of resources, and borrowings, to the establishment and maintenance of a military-industrial complex as the basis of the nation’s economic life.
There are three broad aspects to the US debt crisis. First, in the current fiscal year (2008) we are spending insane amounts of money on “defence” projects that bear no relation to the national security of the US. We are also keeping the income tax burdens on the richest segment of the population at strikingly low levels.
Second, we continue to believe that we can compensate for the accelerating erosion of our base and our loss of jobs to foreign countries through massive military expenditures — “military Keynesianism” (which I discuss in detail in my book Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic). By that, I mean the mistaken belief that public policies focused on frequent wars, huge expenditures on weapons and munitions, and large standing armies can indefinitely sustain a wealthy capitalist economy. The opposite is actually true.
Third, in our devotion to militarism (despite our limited resources), we are failing to invest in our social infrastructure and other requirements for the long-term health of the US. These are what economists call opportunity costs, things not done because we spent our money on something else. Our public education system has deteriorated alarmingly. We have failed to provide health care to all our citizens and neglected our responsibilities as the world’s number one polluter. Most important, we have lost our competitiveness as a manufacturer for civilian needs, an infinitely more efficient use of scarce resources than arms manufacturing.
Fiscal disaster
It is virtually impossible to overstate the profligacy of what our government spends on the military. The Department of Defense’s planned expenditures for the fiscal year 2008 are larger than all other nations’ military budgets combined. The supplementary budget to pay for the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not part of the official defence budget, is itself larger than the combined military budgets of Russia and China. Defence-related spending for fiscal 2008 will exceed $1 trillion for the first time in history. The US has become the largest single seller of arms and munitions to other nations on Earth. Leaving out President Bush’s two on-going wars, defence spending has doubled since the mid-1990s. The defence budget for fiscal 2008 is the largest since the second world war.
But there is much more. In an attempt to disguise the true size of the US military empire, the government has long hidden major military-related expenditures in departments other than Defense. For example, $23.4bn for the Department of Energy goes towards developing and maintaining nuclear warheads; and $25.3bn in the Department of State budget is spent on foreign military assistance (primarily for Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Republic, Egypt and Pakistan). Another $1.03bn outside the official Department of Defense budget is now needed for recruitment and re-enlistment incentives for the overstretched US military, up from a mere $174m in when the war in Iraq began. The Department of Veterans Affairs currently gets at least $75.7bn, 50% of it for the long-term care of the most seriously injured among the 28,870 soldiers so far wounded in Iraq and 1,708 in Afghanistan. The amount is universally derided as inadequate. Another $46.4bn goes to the Department of Homeland Security.
Missing from this compilation is $1.9bn to the Department of Justice for the paramilitary activities of the FBI; $38.5bn to the Department of the Treasury for the Military Retirement Fund; $7.6bn for the military-related activities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and well over $200bn in interest for past debt-financed defence outlays. This brings US spending for its military establishment during the current fiscal year, conservatively calculated, to at least $1.1 trillion.
More to follow.
Detlev_73
Oct 15, 04:34 PM
Microsoft has never, does not, and will never make a product with nearly a quarter of the 'cool' factor that Apple does. Microsoft may be the empresarios' top choice, but is dated, dull, dumb. Apple is innovative, young, and sexy.
"We are Apple. We have great products that work out of the box. Our technological distinctiveness will be adopted free of will by all. Resistance is not necessary: you're amazed at us." :rolleyes:
"We are Apple. We have great products that work out of the box. Our technological distinctiveness will be adopted free of will by all. Resistance is not necessary: you're amazed at us." :rolleyes:
phyzics101
Mar 29, 01:01 AM
I want to be an attendee one day.
blitzkrieg79
Apr 12, 07:46 PM
To be honest, I'm from Germany and I would never ever pay an extra cent for a product manufactured in the US. The caption "Made in the USA" just suggests "Don't buy me, I'm going to suck". All these products I bought that were made in the US were overpriced and mostly of far worse manufacturing quality than comparable products from Asia or Europe. Just my experience, not that I hate Americans or anything, I like their ideas, creativity, inspiration and stuff, but the rest is better done by other people.
In all honesty, this has less to do with reliability, more to do with weakening your own country in the name of larger profit for select few. I have purchased crappy products from Asia/USA/Europe, and I have purchased durable items from Asia/USA/Europe. I guess its more about particular items design/engineering/quality control.
In all honesty, this has less to do with reliability, more to do with weakening your own country in the name of larger profit for select few. I have purchased crappy products from Asia/USA/Europe, and I have purchased durable items from Asia/USA/Europe. I guess its more about particular items design/engineering/quality control.
NoNothing
Mar 28, 11:58 PM
Or just expand it to 2-3 weeks and repeat the event so all can come who want to. I am sure Apple wouldn't mind making a few million more off the event
They bring in about 7.5 million. Sounds like a lot, right? Let's look at it.
Figure about 1000 employees supporting it. Remember there will be offsite support as well. Average cost is about $150,000/year. For 1 week. There goes 2.8 million.
Now, these things do not prep overnight. In fact, employees are already starting the planning on the sessions. My guess is you will have another 2000 employes prepping for 40-80 hours over the next 10 weeks. There goes another.. we will say.. what... 4.5 million. We are 7.3 and we still don't have the Moscone center rented for a week. Lost productivity. Work interruption...
They bring in about 7.5 million. Sounds like a lot, right? Let's look at it.
Figure about 1000 employees supporting it. Remember there will be offsite support as well. Average cost is about $150,000/year. For 1 week. There goes 2.8 million.
Now, these things do not prep overnight. In fact, employees are already starting the planning on the sessions. My guess is you will have another 2000 employes prepping for 40-80 hours over the next 10 weeks. There goes another.. we will say.. what... 4.5 million. We are 7.3 and we still don't have the Moscone center rented for a week. Lost productivity. Work interruption...
BoyBach
Oct 15, 04:34 PM
I like the "Job's Pulling Technique" - whip out iPod, insert ear-buds into lasses ear, adopt hopeful grin and hope she doesn't slap you!
Sounds like a typical weekend night-out in a valley's town. Sans iPod, of course.
;)
Sounds like a typical weekend night-out in a valley's town. Sans iPod, of course.
;)
SevenInchScrew
Oct 3, 10:57 AM
"Move on"? :( Seems kind of testy.
Not testy, just telling you my way of dealing with d-bags.
My point being, playing with randoms is inevitable, and a necessity. After all, if one didn't play with randoms, how would one meet 'nice players' to add to your friend's list?
Sure, playing with randoms is going to happen. But my point is, if you play 5 games of Team Slayer, the chance that all 35 of the randoms you would play against are jerks is minimal, at best. In 5-10 games, you could find yourself 15-20 good, polite players to add to your friends list, and never have to deal with it again.
I imagine it isn't hard to do, but Live seems to be made to play with players from all over. Playing games with only friends, seems to be rather counter productive.
My friends list isn't filled with only people I know in real life. I have friends from all over, that I've met playing all kinds of games, and meet more all the time when my friends bring in some of their friends to play. I'm not suggesting you build up a wall, and close the community out, just to make sure the d-bags don't get to you. I'm just saying, the tools are available, and if you use them properly, your experience will be much better.
Playing with friends not only rids you of having to play with crappy randoms, but it also adds more fun to it as well. If you play with people you know, the communication is better, the team play is better, and often times you'll win more. To me, that seems like the ultimate objective. Have fun and win. I accomplish that by playing primarily with friends. You're free to do whatever you want.
The issue being that Halo proportionately seems to have a greatest number of jerks playing, as compared to say other games. The shame is that even Bungie realized the crappier part of their community, and made such settings as hearing only your team, or even an option to mute all other players.
As I mentioned earlier, when you have one of the largest online communities, you will, by nature of the Law of Averages, have a large number of jerks. No game is immune to this. Forza, COD, Warhawk, Uncharted 2, Burnout, etc. I can't think of a single game that I've played online in which I haven't run into online d-bags. It is just the way the online community works (see PA comic below ;)). MacRumors is a nice, big online community, based around a simple consumer electronics company. That doesn't mean there aren't jerks abound in here. Instead of saying it's a "shame" that Bungie gives those options, you should be happy they do, use them, and then start wondering why more games don't.
http://i53.tinypic.com/zsu2vo.jpg
Not testy, just telling you my way of dealing with d-bags.
My point being, playing with randoms is inevitable, and a necessity. After all, if one didn't play with randoms, how would one meet 'nice players' to add to your friend's list?
Sure, playing with randoms is going to happen. But my point is, if you play 5 games of Team Slayer, the chance that all 35 of the randoms you would play against are jerks is minimal, at best. In 5-10 games, you could find yourself 15-20 good, polite players to add to your friends list, and never have to deal with it again.
I imagine it isn't hard to do, but Live seems to be made to play with players from all over. Playing games with only friends, seems to be rather counter productive.
My friends list isn't filled with only people I know in real life. I have friends from all over, that I've met playing all kinds of games, and meet more all the time when my friends bring in some of their friends to play. I'm not suggesting you build up a wall, and close the community out, just to make sure the d-bags don't get to you. I'm just saying, the tools are available, and if you use them properly, your experience will be much better.
Playing with friends not only rids you of having to play with crappy randoms, but it also adds more fun to it as well. If you play with people you know, the communication is better, the team play is better, and often times you'll win more. To me, that seems like the ultimate objective. Have fun and win. I accomplish that by playing primarily with friends. You're free to do whatever you want.
The issue being that Halo proportionately seems to have a greatest number of jerks playing, as compared to say other games. The shame is that even Bungie realized the crappier part of their community, and made such settings as hearing only your team, or even an option to mute all other players.
As I mentioned earlier, when you have one of the largest online communities, you will, by nature of the Law of Averages, have a large number of jerks. No game is immune to this. Forza, COD, Warhawk, Uncharted 2, Burnout, etc. I can't think of a single game that I've played online in which I haven't run into online d-bags. It is just the way the online community works (see PA comic below ;)). MacRumors is a nice, big online community, based around a simple consumer electronics company. That doesn't mean there aren't jerks abound in here. Instead of saying it's a "shame" that Bungie gives those options, you should be happy they do, use them, and then start wondering why more games don't.
http://i53.tinypic.com/zsu2vo.jpg
wildmac
Nov 6, 11:41 PM
Would you buy a CD MB the day the C2D comes out for $700
a new black one?.. yeah.... :cool:
a new black one?.. yeah.... :cool:
leekohler
Apr 7, 01:56 PM
It can cause a lot of problems when people misinterpret or don't understand it. And lots of modern believers do avoid reading the old testament, especially books of the law like Leviticus and Deuteronomy (because they can be hard to understand).
For me personally, I enjoy reading the narratives of old testament figures like Abraham, David, Joshua, Moses, Solomon, Isaac, etc. etc. These people were far from perfect and much of what we learn from them is in taking note of the mistakes they made. It gives me comfort knowing that if God can use them then he can possibly use me despite the numerous mistakes I make.
Then there are the accounts of people like Job and Joseph. These stories provide such great encouragment as you see how they navigated and overcame such great hardship. Reading their stories provides hope.
Wisdom and poetry books like Psalms and Proverbs are also encouraging and easy to read with their straight forward style and memorable sayings.
I'd encourage everyone to read the Bible. Even if you don't believe it is divinely inspired you can still learn from the collective wisdom of what it contains. It seems that the atheist book the OP started this thread about would contain a good collection of human wisdom and knowledge. I don't know about it being representative of the beliefs of all atheist, but it most likely contains good information from the experiences of those who have gone before us. I would like to think that non-believers could view the Bible in much the same way regardless of whether they believe in God.
Great question lee, thanks for asking. :)
I've read it about sixteen times, thanks. ;)
For me personally, I enjoy reading the narratives of old testament figures like Abraham, David, Joshua, Moses, Solomon, Isaac, etc. etc. These people were far from perfect and much of what we learn from them is in taking note of the mistakes they made. It gives me comfort knowing that if God can use them then he can possibly use me despite the numerous mistakes I make.
Then there are the accounts of people like Job and Joseph. These stories provide such great encouragment as you see how they navigated and overcame such great hardship. Reading their stories provides hope.
Wisdom and poetry books like Psalms and Proverbs are also encouraging and easy to read with their straight forward style and memorable sayings.
I'd encourage everyone to read the Bible. Even if you don't believe it is divinely inspired you can still learn from the collective wisdom of what it contains. It seems that the atheist book the OP started this thread about would contain a good collection of human wisdom and knowledge. I don't know about it being representative of the beliefs of all atheist, but it most likely contains good information from the experiences of those who have gone before us. I would like to think that non-believers could view the Bible in much the same way regardless of whether they believe in God.
Great question lee, thanks for asking. :)
I've read it about sixteen times, thanks. ;)
AndroidfoLife
Apr 16, 07:54 PM
1. My statement made perfect sense. Apple builds excellent hardware that competes very well with other expensive hardware, the build quality is better than what anyone else produces, and Apple's Macintosh computers often have unique design that you cannot find elsewhere. Anybody who needs to run Windows and is willing to pay for top quality hardware is well advised to consider buying a Macintosh.
2. You are in LOVE with an ASUS board? I'm in love with my wife. If my MacBook was stolen or damaged I wouldn't shed one tear; I would just wait for the insurance money and buy a new one. You seem to have a strange irrational emotional attachment here.
Apple does not have the best have a build quality better then everyone else. They have some very good computers, but their are companies who build much better computers you have no evidence to back up your statement. Macs use the same hardware as everyone else.
2. You are in LOVE with an ASUS board? I'm in love with my wife. If my MacBook was stolen or damaged I wouldn't shed one tear; I would just wait for the insurance money and buy a new one. You seem to have a strange irrational emotional attachment here.
Apple does not have the best have a build quality better then everyone else. They have some very good computers, but their are companies who build much better computers you have no evidence to back up your statement. Macs use the same hardware as everyone else.
unemployed
Aug 3, 11:13 PM
read this somewhere- not sure if it has been posted here yet. Seems like the MBP at the end of the banner has a different (thinner) speaker design than both the current MBP 15' & 17'
Here are some images of the banner, MBP 15 & 17
Nevermind this links shows it was just a perspective issue.
http://temp.bhmm.net/wwdc-2006-dist.jpg
Here are some images of the banner, MBP 15 & 17
Nevermind this links shows it was just a perspective issue.
http://temp.bhmm.net/wwdc-2006-dist.jpg
applefan289
Mar 28, 11:51 AM
Man, Apple keeps getting lower and lower. First Walmart, now this?
No comments:
Post a Comment