I actually do this, because I have a hyper-active conscience and feel guilty if I don't. It's worth the 6.5% (where I live) to me to avoid wondering if I'm compromising my integrity.
But that's only due to my probable mental deficiency. Feel free to make fun of me. I would do the same if the roles were reversed.
it's hard to say for sure. They may have very legitimate reasons for doing this. The CD/DVD software side of the business might be in decline and headed for unprofitability, so they're cashing out while they can. They may also have deals and/or plans on the napster side they're not disclosing publicly that make this decision rational. Those deals with universities are an example. Another possibility is that they have a completely different (and very profitable) project they want to try and need the cash to be able to do it.
Of course, another possibility is that they're complete morons who are giving themselves a cranial enema. Only time will tell.
I have a PCI PVR-250 from Hauppauge, and I love it. The video quality is great and the applications are stable and easy to use. I would imagine their USB models are also good. Get something with a hardware encoder if possible. It makes it much easier to record a show while using your computer for something else.
I previously had an ATI TV Wonder, and I could never get it to work right with my nVidia video card. I wonder if they do that on purpose? I gave the TV Wonder to my brother, and it works ok for him for live TV, but the PVR software sucks.
"No offense, but any time you start a business there is always a big 'if'"
You're right that there's always a big "if". My point was that, given the state of the industry and the competition they are facing, this "if" is bigger than most.
Losses almost as big as revenues = sound business strategy.
I'm sure their shareholders are loving that. I mean, they obviously need to do something with all their cash, but flushing it down the toilet usually isn't the best strategy.
Of course, if they leverage these losses to eventually become profitable in the console market, that's another story. But that's a big "if" right now.
It's possible to believe God is omnipotent without believing he controls everything. He has the power to control everything, but he chooses not to.
"What difference does it make. *I knew ahead of time the choice he would make* (since I am, in this example, "God"). So, I knew he would make that choice, despite my warnings, and knowing this, I still put him in this situation and punished him for his "decision". Tell me again, how is this the dog's fault?"
I clearly explained how that's the dog's fault. He made the choice while fully comprehending the consequences.
Let's improve the analogy to say that if the dog doesn't eat the steak, I'll give him a steak tomorrow that's twice as big. I put him in the situation because I want to reward him with a big steak, but only if he'll obey me. If he eats it, then it's his decision and his fault.
Even knowing the dog will eat it now and get shot, if I don't put him in the situation, I am denying him the opportunity to get the bigger steak. The dog could rightly claim that I am unjust because I took away his right to choose and his shot at the much larger steak.
The analogy isn't great, but I think it's understandable. Again, I don't expect anyone to agree with me. My only point is that intelligent people can believe different things, especially in the absence of much evidence either way. You don't have to be stupid or mentally weak to be religious.
Your point isn't hard to understand, I just happen to disagree. I disagree that God controls everything that goes on in the world or the universe. He certainly influences things, but he doesn't control every situation we are placed in and he doesn't force people to make choices. If he did, why would he allow people to sin? The bible says repeatedly that God hates sin and wickedness. He creates people with certain tendencies, but also gives them the freedom and ability to make choices contrary to those tendencies. He allows them that freedom even when it will be used contrary to his will because that's the only way people can grow and progress. God doesn't control peoples' choices because people don't learn and grow that way, and our growth and progress is what God is ultimately most interested in.
You're free to disagree, and obviously do, but my position does not come from a lack of understanding the countering argument.
As for the dog and steak example. If you say to yourself you're going to shoot the dog, that's not the same as telling the dog IN A WAY THE DOG UNDERSTANDS COMPLETELY that you will shoot him if he eats it. If the dog understands the consequences, then still eats the steak, it's completely his own fault. Now, you could say I was evil for putting the dog in such a difficult situation. But if I wanted to train my dog to obey me even in extremely difficult circumstances, such a temptation would be necessary to help him learn.
"If you KNOW which way someone will take in a fork, he has no choice. If he took the other fork, you wouldnt have known."
How does knowing what will happen remove choice? In the fork example, if I'm standing there and I know beforehand which fork you'll take, but I say nothing and do nothing to influence your choice, how does my knowledge remove your choice? God's foreknowledge doesn't mean a person doesn't have a choice, it means He knows which CHOICE that person will make. The person is still the one making the choice.
"If he took the other fork, you wouldnt have known."
True, but he won't. Here's another example. If I put a steak on the floor and let a dog in the room, I know with 100% certainty the dog will devour it ASAP. Does that mean I'm forcing the dog to eat the steak?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I'm sure it depends on your state and/or municipality. Where I live, you're supposed to pay the tax whether you itemize or not.
I actually do this, because I have a hyper-active conscience and feel guilty if I don't. It's worth the 6.5% (where I live) to me to avoid wondering if I'm compromising my integrity.
But that's only due to my probable mental deficiency. Feel free to make fun of me. I would do the same if the roles were reversed.
it's hard to say for sure. They may have very legitimate reasons for doing this. The CD/DVD software side of the business might be in decline and headed for unprofitability, so they're cashing out while they can. They may also have deals and/or plans on the napster side they're not disclosing publicly that make this decision rational. Those deals with universities are an example. Another possibility is that they have a completely different (and very profitable) project they want to try and need the cash to be able to do it.
Of course, another possibility is that they're complete morons who are giving themselves a cranial enema. Only time will tell.
I have a PCI PVR-250 from Hauppauge, and I love it. The video quality is great and the applications are stable and easy to use. I would imagine their USB models are also good. Get something with a hardware encoder if possible. It makes it much easier to record a show while using your computer for something else.
I previously had an ATI TV Wonder, and I could never get it to work right with my nVidia video card. I wonder if they do that on purpose? I gave the TV Wonder to my brother, and it works ok for him for live TV, but the PVR software sucks.
"No offense, but any time you start a business there is always a big 'if'"
You're right that there's always a big "if". My point was that, given the state of the industry and the competition they are facing, this "if" is bigger than most.
Losses almost as big as revenues = sound business strategy. I'm sure their shareholders are loving that. I mean, they obviously need to do something with all their cash, but flushing it down the toilet usually isn't the best strategy. Of course, if they leverage these losses to eventually become profitable in the console market, that's another story. But that's a big "if" right now.
It's possible to believe God is omnipotent without believing he controls everything. He has the power to control everything, but he chooses not to. "What difference does it make. *I knew ahead of time the choice he would make* (since I am, in this example, "God"). So, I knew he would make that choice, despite my warnings, and knowing this, I still put him in this situation and punished him for his "decision". Tell me again, how is this the dog's fault?" I clearly explained how that's the dog's fault. He made the choice while fully comprehending the consequences. Let's improve the analogy to say that if the dog doesn't eat the steak, I'll give him a steak tomorrow that's twice as big. I put him in the situation because I want to reward him with a big steak, but only if he'll obey me. If he eats it, then it's his decision and his fault. Even knowing the dog will eat it now and get shot, if I don't put him in the situation, I am denying him the opportunity to get the bigger steak. The dog could rightly claim that I am unjust because I took away his right to choose and his shot at the much larger steak. The analogy isn't great, but I think it's understandable. Again, I don't expect anyone to agree with me. My only point is that intelligent people can believe different things, especially in the absence of much evidence either way. You don't have to be stupid or mentally weak to be religious.
Your point isn't hard to understand, I just happen to disagree. I disagree that God controls everything that goes on in the world or the universe. He certainly influences things, but he doesn't control every situation we are placed in and he doesn't force people to make choices. If he did, why would he allow people to sin? The bible says repeatedly that God hates sin and wickedness. He creates people with certain tendencies, but also gives them the freedom and ability to make choices contrary to those tendencies. He allows them that freedom even when it will be used contrary to his will because that's the only way people can grow and progress. God doesn't control peoples' choices because people don't learn and grow that way, and our growth and progress is what God is ultimately most interested in. You're free to disagree, and obviously do, but my position does not come from a lack of understanding the countering argument. As for the dog and steak example. If you say to yourself you're going to shoot the dog, that's not the same as telling the dog IN A WAY THE DOG UNDERSTANDS COMPLETELY that you will shoot him if he eats it. If the dog understands the consequences, then still eats the steak, it's completely his own fault. Now, you could say I was evil for putting the dog in such a difficult situation. But if I wanted to train my dog to obey me even in extremely difficult circumstances, such a temptation would be necessary to help him learn.
"If you KNOW which way someone will take in a fork, he has no choice. If he took the other fork, you wouldnt have known."
How does knowing what will happen remove choice? In the fork example, if I'm standing there and I know beforehand which fork you'll take, but I say nothing and do nothing to influence your choice, how does my knowledge remove your choice? God's foreknowledge doesn't mean a person doesn't have a choice, it means He knows which CHOICE that person will make. The person is still the one making the choice.
"If he took the other fork, you wouldnt have known."
True, but he won't. Here's another example. If I put a steak on the floor and let a dog in the room, I know with 100% certainty the dog will devour it ASAP. Does that mean I'm forcing the dog to eat the steak?