darkwing
Aug 29, 12:44 PM
Oh yeah? Please kindly explain to all of us just what the "real agenda" of these "evil groups" such as Greenpeace is...
With all due respect, are you asleep?
I just gave examples in my post. Groups like this want to stop business and the growth of the American economy. That's their agenda. Why isn't greenpeace over in China or Indian demanding cleaner emissions from their cars/power plants/industry? Ever been to Shanghai? Good luck seeing over 100 feet from the smog. That's on a good day. Those two countries are killing the environment, but it's all Apple's fault according to GP. Give me a break.
With all due respect, are you asleep?
I just gave examples in my post. Groups like this want to stop business and the growth of the American economy. That's their agenda. Why isn't greenpeace over in China or Indian demanding cleaner emissions from their cars/power plants/industry? Ever been to Shanghai? Good luck seeing over 100 feet from the smog. That's on a good day. Those two countries are killing the environment, but it's all Apple's fault according to GP. Give me a break.
Gosh
Sep 12, 06:09 PM
Hi All, Hi Al!
I'm feeling a bit thick maybe on this but how does iTV differ from EyeHome?
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyehome:confused:
I'm feeling a bit thick maybe on this but how does iTV differ from EyeHome?
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyehome:confused:
�algiris
May 2, 09:34 AM
Any software for a Mac that says "MAC" in the title or in any documentation would already be suspect to me. Pretty much every person I have run across that thinks it is spelled in all caps as "MAC" has been a moron.
And just simply in general anti-virus software is useless on Mac, so why would anyone download and install any anti-virus, defender or scanner is above me.
And just simply in general anti-virus software is useless on Mac, so why would anyone download and install any anti-virus, defender or scanner is above me.
Mal
Apr 5, 08:05 PM
One off the top of my head is that everything costs money application wise, there is very little freeware.
Actually, I have rarely been unable to find freeware, usually open source, that cannot more than meet my needs. That doesn't mean there isn't something paid that would have more polish and be easier to deal with, but there's certainly no lack of free software on the Mac.
I guess I should clarify here that I'm not technically a switcher. Last time I used a PC for personal use was when I was about 8.
jW
Actually, I have rarely been unable to find freeware, usually open source, that cannot more than meet my needs. That doesn't mean there isn't something paid that would have more polish and be easier to deal with, but there's certainly no lack of free software on the Mac.
I guess I should clarify here that I'm not technically a switcher. Last time I used a PC for personal use was when I was about 8.
jW
theBB
Sep 12, 07:24 PM
Does this thing have an Ethernet port, and it apparently does. I'd rather not rely on wireless. Right now I have a VGA cable from my iMac to my TV, so I'd gain something by replacing it with a simple CAT5.
I'm a bit surprised not to see any USB or FW ports on there though. I was betting on being able to hook up an optional HDD.
It's got USB.
I'm a bit surprised not to see any USB or FW ports on there though. I was betting on being able to hook up an optional HDD.
It's got USB.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 01:18 PM
Can we talk about Greenpeace's environmental track record for a minute?
- They mourn the millions of gallons of gasoline burned by cars, but refuse to support diesel fuel, which, while slightly more polluting than gas, is nearly twice as efficient, meaning collective fuel consumption would be cut dramatically.
- They champion E85, which provides only about 70% of the efficiency of gas and requires nearly a gallon of gas to manufacture per gallon of E85.
- Ditto the above for hydrogen-based fuels.
- They've indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of starving Africans by preventing the development of genetically-engineered foods.
So who is Greenpeace accountable to?
- They mourn the millions of gallons of gasoline burned by cars, but refuse to support diesel fuel, which, while slightly more polluting than gas, is nearly twice as efficient, meaning collective fuel consumption would be cut dramatically.
- They champion E85, which provides only about 70% of the efficiency of gas and requires nearly a gallon of gas to manufacture per gallon of E85.
- Ditto the above for hydrogen-based fuels.
- They've indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of starving Africans by preventing the development of genetically-engineered foods.
So who is Greenpeace accountable to?
peharri
Sep 21, 06:32 AM
I think those suggesting spends of $150/mo or higher should possibly back off until the unit's been in service for a year or so.
As others have pointed out, with season passes and acknowledging the number of repeats, access to even conventional TV shows shouldn't be that expensive. But I also believe there will be a significant amount of free and/or low cost content which isn't obvious right now because we're looking at the whole thing being exclusively iTS based.
Apple has already said it's going to team up with Google Video to provide content. TV shows are going to want to promote themselves by providing free pilots. Video blogs should be available. One major studio is teaming up with MyTube to provide free music videos, and I suspect that will become available in time somehow to iTV users.
In short, there's no reason to believe that it'll be necessary to pay for all the content, and certainly the content you do pay for will vary in price even given Steve's wish to keep pricing simple.
The majority of families in the US spend around $50-90 per month on a generally poor cable TV service. It's not hard to see how an average iTV using family would spend around the same amount, receiving a significantly better product in return.
As others have pointed out, with season passes and acknowledging the number of repeats, access to even conventional TV shows shouldn't be that expensive. But I also believe there will be a significant amount of free and/or low cost content which isn't obvious right now because we're looking at the whole thing being exclusively iTS based.
Apple has already said it's going to team up with Google Video to provide content. TV shows are going to want to promote themselves by providing free pilots. Video blogs should be available. One major studio is teaming up with MyTube to provide free music videos, and I suspect that will become available in time somehow to iTV users.
In short, there's no reason to believe that it'll be necessary to pay for all the content, and certainly the content you do pay for will vary in price even given Steve's wish to keep pricing simple.
The majority of families in the US spend around $50-90 per month on a generally poor cable TV service. It's not hard to see how an average iTV using family would spend around the same amount, receiving a significantly better product in return.
zgh1999
Apr 20, 08:12 PM
Yeah! My battery lasts for upwards of two days. Definitely not comparable at all to an iPhone.
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
Get with the program here.
Everyone should buy an iPad 2, in both black and white.
And everyone should also buy an iPhone 4, just in black.
Didn't you get the memo?
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
Get with the program here.
Everyone should buy an iPad 2, in both black and white.
And everyone should also buy an iPhone 4, just in black.
Didn't you get the memo?
Iconoclysm
Apr 20, 08:12 PM
You mean just like unix operating systems have "so many" viruses and it's a completely open source environment? In fact OSX is based on BSD unix. LOL
Yeah, because they hold the largest marketshare, right?
Yeah, because they hold the largest marketshare, right?
EricNau
Sep 20, 12:40 AM
If it contains a HDD (a fact I am not entirely convinced of), I doubt it would be used for recording TV shows.
Programming such a device with a basic remote like the ones Steve Jobs previewed would be near-to-impossible.
If Apple did introduce the ability to record TV shows (which I also doubt), I believe it would be at the computer, only to be streamed to the iTV later.
Programming such a device with a basic remote like the ones Steve Jobs previewed would be near-to-impossible.
If Apple did introduce the ability to record TV shows (which I also doubt), I believe it would be at the computer, only to be streamed to the iTV later.
Stella
Aug 29, 03:53 PM
Why not target the bigger fish first? Too hard a target? Microsoft in its CD replication factories, Dell in its TV/monitor and board manufacturing facilities surely put out hundreds of tons of more toxic wastes than all of Apples productions combined. Why not start there?
Really, I thought it was a survey that happened to find Apple not so Green amongst other companies. Anything that puts Apple in a bad light is automatically deemed as "Singling out Apple".
I for one welcome this kind of thing - it names and shames.
Really, I thought it was a survey that happened to find Apple not so Green amongst other companies. Anything that puts Apple in a bad light is automatically deemed as "Singling out Apple".
I for one welcome this kind of thing - it names and shames.
rasmasyean
Apr 23, 02:24 AM
as for suicide bombers knowing that there is a God or Allah ... they are just strong believers ... IMO they "know" nothing and soon find themselves blown into complete silence
This is just a form of soldier conditioning. Don't fool yourself into thinking we don't do this to our own soldiers. That's why we get them when they are young 18 year olds who are impressionable and tell them they are doing this for "god and country". The good wolves will "go to heaven" protecting the sheep. "God Speed" in their mission. Being sent out to get blown up by an IED is as cannon fodderish as strapping one to your chest. The only difference is that the latter tactic is used in times of despiration against an overwhelmingly powerful enemy. Just like Kamakazis, Viet Cong, etc. And now these ppl make our TV's and clothing. ;)
This is just a form of soldier conditioning. Don't fool yourself into thinking we don't do this to our own soldiers. That's why we get them when they are young 18 year olds who are impressionable and tell them they are doing this for "god and country". The good wolves will "go to heaven" protecting the sheep. "God Speed" in their mission. Being sent out to get blown up by an IED is as cannon fodderish as strapping one to your chest. The only difference is that the latter tactic is used in times of despiration against an overwhelmingly powerful enemy. Just like Kamakazis, Viet Cong, etc. And now these ppl make our TV's and clothing. ;)
inkswamp
Feb 22, 06:29 PM
What are we on now, like, the 3rd rev. of the iPhone hardware? Think back to the 3rd rev. of the iPod (I don't even think that version had a color screen yet.) How about the third rev. of OS X? Third rev. of the iMac?
I think one thing speculation like should should take into account is that Apple is incredibly aggressive about updating their products and what lies ahead can often, drastically change the playing field.
Remember the end of 2006 when the Zune was announced and everyone was running around spazzing out about how dead Apple was and all the usual Microsoft cheerleaders in the tech press were practically wetting themselves in excitement? And a mere month later, what happened? The iPhone was unveiled and all but nullified the Zune.
I think anyone engaging in this kind of speculation should keep that in mind.
I think one thing speculation like should should take into account is that Apple is incredibly aggressive about updating their products and what lies ahead can often, drastically change the playing field.
Remember the end of 2006 when the Zune was announced and everyone was running around spazzing out about how dead Apple was and all the usual Microsoft cheerleaders in the tech press were practically wetting themselves in excitement? And a mere month later, what happened? The iPhone was unveiled and all but nullified the Zune.
I think anyone engaging in this kind of speculation should keep that in mind.
ghostface147
May 2, 09:24 AM
I am not concerned with malware that requires user intervention and a few clicks to install things. I am more concerned with malware that installs silently without you seeing any pop-ups or stuff like that.
Kind of like those pwn2own contests I think are over-rated. "Pwn" my machine without me having to click anything, visit any website or anything. I'll just boot my machine, leave it at the login screen and let you do your thing. You can't touch it physically, just find a way in.
Kind of like those pwn2own contests I think are over-rated. "Pwn" my machine without me having to click anything, visit any website or anything. I'll just boot my machine, leave it at the login screen and let you do your thing. You can't touch it physically, just find a way in.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 23, 02:50 PM
The Bible? I don't think I've ever heard of it. :rolleyes: No one can prove the existence of God in any form, let alone some specific God as described in the Bible (a compilation of edited stories mostly derived from hearsay).
You don't understand and you don't seem to want to understand so I'll leave you to it.
You don't understand and you don't seem to want to understand so I'll leave you to it.
Sydde
Mar 24, 07:29 PM
Don't be so disingenuous. The Catholic church has stigmatised gays relentlessly.
"Stigmatised"? Is that a best-case description of what the church has done?
"Stigmatised"? Is that a best-case description of what the church has done?
7racer
Sep 12, 07:42 PM
This will be a nice solution if HD streaming is available.
I record my trips/vacations on a HD Sony camcorder and make a iDVD of it.
Hopefully, I will be able to stream this with HiDef to my TV without the need for either Bluray or HDDVD standard to play itself out.
I record my trips/vacations on a HD Sony camcorder and make a iDVD of it.
Hopefully, I will be able to stream this with HiDef to my TV without the need for either Bluray or HDDVD standard to play itself out.
spicyapple
Sep 25, 11:36 PM
Did anyone listen to TWiT? Someone mentioned 80 cores. Clovertown, your days are numbered. ;)
paulvee
Nov 3, 07:59 AM
Most pros I know don't measurebate about specs on forums all day, every day - yes, once in a while they do, but most of the time they're...doing work...
100Teraflops
Apr 5, 07:12 PM
Hmm? I'm not really sure what this means. Can you explain?
Wow. I could see this being a pain in the butt when we're used to just clicking on 'Close Window' and we're done.
Are you guys sure that switching is really "worth it"? (serious question)
One can delete icons by dragging and dropping them onto the desktop from another app or the dock. However, they are not permanently deleted from your hard drive. It sounds strange at first, but it is pretty cool once you get use to seeing the icon mystified, saying it is thrash. :eek: Both Windows and Mac thrash icons are waste paper baskets. :)
There are videos on Apple's web-site titled something like "switching from Windows to Mac 101 or the switch basics." I do not remember the exact title, but mine are close. These tutorials will be helpful! Check them out! Also, you can drag items such as photos and video directly onto the desktop with the mouse.
As far as regretting the "switch," no way! :) OS X is easy to use and the 'finder' is pretty much idiot proof! While using Windows, I struggle to find simply things like documents and system files, because you have to add exc and other computer jargon to find what you are looking for. Point being: using the finder incorporated into Mac OS X to hunt down documents and system files is easy. Plus you can search specific aspects of the hard drive. Like the entire hard drive, your music library, applications, a.k.a. apps (which are programs in Windows land,) or your documents. Each are separate folders to conduct a search for 'X' file, app, or song.
I am not bashing Windows though! This must be noted, because I am not a wiz with any operating system. Each OS has its pros and cons and I am unfairly pointing out the cons of Windows, because that is your request. I like to use computers, as I am a button pusher, but I do not how they tic. :D
Wow. I could see this being a pain in the butt when we're used to just clicking on 'Close Window' and we're done.
Are you guys sure that switching is really "worth it"? (serious question)
One can delete icons by dragging and dropping them onto the desktop from another app or the dock. However, they are not permanently deleted from your hard drive. It sounds strange at first, but it is pretty cool once you get use to seeing the icon mystified, saying it is thrash. :eek: Both Windows and Mac thrash icons are waste paper baskets. :)
There are videos on Apple's web-site titled something like "switching from Windows to Mac 101 or the switch basics." I do not remember the exact title, but mine are close. These tutorials will be helpful! Check them out! Also, you can drag items such as photos and video directly onto the desktop with the mouse.
As far as regretting the "switch," no way! :) OS X is easy to use and the 'finder' is pretty much idiot proof! While using Windows, I struggle to find simply things like documents and system files, because you have to add exc and other computer jargon to find what you are looking for. Point being: using the finder incorporated into Mac OS X to hunt down documents and system files is easy. Plus you can search specific aspects of the hard drive. Like the entire hard drive, your music library, applications, a.k.a. apps (which are programs in Windows land,) or your documents. Each are separate folders to conduct a search for 'X' file, app, or song.
I am not bashing Windows though! This must be noted, because I am not a wiz with any operating system. Each OS has its pros and cons and I am unfairly pointing out the cons of Windows, because that is your request. I like to use computers, as I am a button pusher, but I do not how they tic. :D
Gelfin
Mar 25, 01:26 PM
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
CalBoy
Apr 23, 05:45 PM
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
Apple OC
Apr 24, 09:11 PM
Yep. I've lived a completely sheltered life, never studied my faith, and certainly never questioned it- never been in any in-depth discussions of religion, and most importantly, I do not understand why I think Christianity is legitimate rather than any other religion.
I believe only the things my parents have told me, and I plug my ears whenever someone says anything different. I'm completely unaware of modern science and how some people consider it to be a religion killer.
To top it off, compared to all atheists, I'm an illiterate, illogical, southern-bred moron and I will never be able to make an educated decision for myself.
And just to be clear, I DID NOT make a 35 on the ACT my Junior year of high school, and I am not on scholarship to a top 25 university.
happy now? :cool:
lol ... thanks for clearing that up
I believe only the things my parents have told me, and I plug my ears whenever someone says anything different. I'm completely unaware of modern science and how some people consider it to be a religion killer.
To top it off, compared to all atheists, I'm an illiterate, illogical, southern-bred moron and I will never be able to make an educated decision for myself.
And just to be clear, I DID NOT make a 35 on the ACT my Junior year of high school, and I am not on scholarship to a top 25 university.
happy now? :cool:
lol ... thanks for clearing that up
blahblah100
Apr 28, 01:39 PM
If you don't have a PC, there's nothing that you need to "sync" or "move files" from. And the iPad works perfectly fine on its own.
Really?
So I can take an iPad out of the box and use it without ever involving a "pc?"
If so, I must have a defective iPad since mine was completely useless until I connected it to iTunes ON A PC... :eek:
Really?
So I can take an iPad out of the box and use it without ever involving a "pc?"
If so, I must have a defective iPad since mine was completely useless until I connected it to iTunes ON A PC... :eek:
No comments:
Post a Comment