darth_ender said:
Dang! I was composing a nice reply to dclarkeg and my browser shut down. Now I'll have to retype it, and I don't have the time right now :(
:(
I know the feeling, specially on these kind of subjects where you can spend a lot of time looking for the right way of expressing the ideas. Hope you can find time to re-type the reply :)
Warbler said:
Yes, I agree they would not need as much faith as I would need. That is why in the Bible Jesus said: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Jesus said many things and none of them changes the faith issue ,all what he said is on the bible and that is precisely the book we are discussing if it is true or not. Bottom line you also have ''faith'' on Jesus himself actually saying that, but I could argue that you can't prove it for sure he said it and then we'll be stuck on the ''you can't disprove/prove it therefore is not false/true'' argument.
Warbler said:
huh? just because you can easily doubt something, doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it is what I believe, yes. and yes I agree I can not prove that he is risen. My point is that you can not prove he isn't risen. And a claim that can't be disproved or proved also isn't a falsehood.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if you look at what I originally wrote, you will I see I was discussing what Christians belief. As for a debate on whether not what they belief is true, I don't see the point in such a debate. There is no way to prove that what they belief is true and they is no way to prove that what they belief is false.
I know that if a claim can't be prove nor disprove then it doesn't make it neither true or false which is fine with me, but a claim can't sustain a ongoing duality of being true and false at the same time and that is why when a claim is doubtful we call it ''hypothesis''. Now, the way we decide if a hypothesis is true or false is by supplying evidence to sustain what you believe is the correct answer but so far you have presented NONE.
If you present me a piece of paper that says something (it could be anything) and then you claim that what the paper says is true then I will request evidence other than a paper saying so in order to confirm that it is true, you can't say that because you don't have evidence to support the claim and I don't have means to disprove it then it becomes true because is not false. That rationalization may fit in a philosophical scheme but in terms of proving that the bible is true it doesn't hold by itself, the bible may not be false but for sure is not true or at least not without evidence. The bible is, at best, an unproven hypothesis that you chose to believe as true based on ''faith'' and flaw logic. Pure logic can often fall on catch-22, a good example is my signature.
Warbler said:
Long ago, it was easy to doubt that the world was round, but that didn't make it false. I can drop a bowling ball and feather at the same time from the same height and then easily doubt that objects fall at the rate, but they do.
The difference is that all of that is already proven and you (and the entire human race) have EVIDENCE of that, that is why you are saying that is TRUE. You can't just pick things that were easily doubt in the past but we know that now are true, specially when you know that those things are true because you have evidence and not because you have faith in it. The point you tried to make would be valid if we already had indisputable EVIDENCE that the Christian religion is TRUE but that isn't the case.
darth_ender said:
You're right, it is difficult. I am an RN at a hospital and work night shift. About 21 hours ago, one of my patients passed away. His family was sad because he didn't receive his last rites in time. I hope you would choose better words of comfort than, "Well, it's okay because it's all a bunch of crap anyway," were you in my shoes.
I agree.
darth_ender said:
You know, religion is meaningful to people. Just like music, a sunset, love. It is deep and has deeper implications to a person than you seem to realize. There are psychological benefits, health benefits, things that are proven to be actual benefits. Regardless of whether you believe it or not, whether it is true or not, if you dismiss it so readily, you miss far more than you could possibly realize.
I agree, but when it comes to religion those good experiences and benefits come from accepting the religious believes as true, and I mean ''have faith'' that is the true. A person who doesn't accept religion as truth can't have those benefits because it won't generate any uplifting of any kind. I can't get spiritual uplift by a religious experience like praying to Jesus because for me that would be the same as praying to Shiva or Zeus. That is why you have ONE religion and despite the fact that you may understand and empathize with the other ones you still won't be able to feel any uplifting by those because is not what you believe as true.
We all get our spiritual uplifting from different sources, in many ways and on different levels and not all people requires mystical, ancient or supernatural means to achieve such states of mind. I'm not saying that we should get rid of all religions, I'm saying that religions are just a path for spiritual meaning and we should not take all of it as absolute true and try to run our lives and society by it's rules. The gift of discerning what's absurd from a practical and/or empirical point of view and what's a good teaching or lesson to apply as a every day value starts in accepting that you can't just take a whole religion and say that it's entirely true just because of the uplift it causes, specially when we know that the psychological influence of the religion in the human physique has no match.
I'm not saying this is your case of course, I'm illustrating a ''broad spectrum'' (not to be confuse with ''generalization'') of religious people that will take almost everything in the scriptures as literal true rather than see the allegories, metaphors, cultural references, scientific flaws, linguistic confusions, misinterpretations and all the things you can expect of a ancient millennial book that has been modified in many ways and by many people (both intentional and unintentional) throughout the centuries. Religion should be aware of it's own boundaries: is an option not a fact.
darth_ender said:
That is not my point. My point is that they understand that there is scientific reasoning, but they also realize there is room for faith. And it did not detract at all from their brilliance. Try as you may to demonstrate that intelligent thinking comes from rejecting such things, many intelligent people actually embrace them.
I agree, by any means intelligent thinking means rejecting supernatural/mystical things over scientific reasoning but let's agree that an intelligent mind will also be wise enough to keep them both separate at least when it comes to search for scientific truth. Spiritual truth is an opinion.
darth_ender said:
The absence of proof is not proof. It is justification for doubt, but even if I didn't believe in God, I would only be an agnostic, because I'd recognize the possibility.
I agree, but as long as there are doubts about a claim then it can't be taken as true, which means that act based on the assumption that it is true would be irresponsible.
darth_ender said:
But there is no need to prove something like this. You don't believe. We got it, thanks. But we take things on faith. Perhaps it's a means of receiving evidence different from that which you employ. Have you ever, you know, scientifically ruled out such a mechanism for seeking knowledge? Have you ever actually sought something in faith before deciding it's untrue? That is the scientific method, after all.
Taking things on faith isn't by any means scientific, you can extrapolate the scientific method principles into abstract dilemmas but since we already established that religious people takes religion on ''faith'' then any attempt to reconcile religion with a scientific approach will fail. The scientific method is all about following the evidence and be able to abandon a hypothesis when proven wrong or at least doubt about it until it is proved or discarded, the religion tends to pull more in the opposite direction.
darth_ender said:
Oh boy, a book written by inspired but still mortal humans actually has faults and contradictions! We never knew! ;)
Yeah, what a shock right? We should take that into consideration any time somebody claims that what is written on it is literal true from the hand o god, even if it was inspired by him we can't just neglect the fact that in the end is a book written by humans. There are some other gods who inspired humans to write stuff as well... if we could only know which one is right.
Warbler said:
You were the one that made a claim. You claimed he was dead. I told you what we Christians believe. Since you made the claim that he is dead, it is up to you to prove it.
Warbler said:
actually, Christians believe he was seen and was physically present on this planet after he died until he ascended into heaven. We believe he was by the two Marys, his disciples and Paul. True, they could all have been lying, but it can not be proven that they did not see him alive again.
I agree but you think that they are not lying because you have ''faith'' in the truthfulness of the claims and the funny thing here is that if the two Marys, his disciples and Paul indeed literally saw him then why they would need ''faith'' at all? If you are an eyewitness of an event then you don't need faith. If I see Jesus alive with my own eyes the I'll definitely will become a follower and support the dude. Also my intention is not disprove the claim but to demonstrate that you can easily doubt about it and therefore is not true and can't be takes as one, as long as there is doubts there is no truth, just faith.
Warbler said:
I didn't claim Jesus isn't dead. Look at what I originally wrote:
But the bible claims that he isn't because he resurrected, that was the whole point of the Easter Day right? That is the claim that can't be disproved o proved and therefore is not a truth. Also If I recall correctly your agree with the biblical claim, at least your signature says so.
Warbler said:
All I would have to prove my claim is to prove that Christians believe Jesus isn't dead.
We are not discussing what Christians believe since we all know what they believe, the debate is if what they believe is true.
Warbler said:
I can't prove that Jesus isn't dead. I never said I could. My point is that you can not prove he is dead. Therefore it is still possible he isn't dead. You can believe all you want that he is dead. You may even be able to say in all probability that he is dead. But, you can't say for certain he is dead. You do not know it for a fact.
Again and quoting myself: ''Also my intention is not disprove the claim but to demonstrate that you can easily doubt about it and therefore is not true and can't be taken as one, as long as there is doubts there is no truth, just faith.''
Warbler said:
You say "I think", and "may have existed". If you can't say for certain he existed, how can you say for certain he is dead?
But also you can't say for certain he existed nor he is alive.
If all Christian claims were indeed true we wouldn't be discussing ANYTHING at all because there would be enough evidence to convince EVERYBODY, evidence that shouldn't be a problem for the ''Alfa and Omega'' to supply but no, here we are stuck in philosophical rhetoric.
Warbler said:
and you are free to believe what you want. But can not state as fact what you do not know for certain to be fact.
Correct, but the fact here is that there is enough reasons to doubt about the Jesus claim, I can't say it's false as much you can't say it's true which you say it is but based on faith.
Warbler said:
Yeah, I know the Bible has contradictions. That doesn't mean I can't point out contradictions and it doesn't make your contradiction into something consistent.
Of course I have contradictions which by definition can't be consistent with each other, but pointing out my contradictions do not make the ones of the bible to go away so.
TV's Frink said:
dclarkg said:
I would love to see Frink running it!
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/TVs-Frinks-otcom-Twitter-Feed/topic/12171/
Last tweet: 10-2014
I meant the real twitter.
Hal 9000 said:
I'be got my fingers crossed for the PT deleted scenes from the DVD to appear in HD. They're listed under "legacy content," but hopefully sourced from a master and not just literally from the DVD.
Don't hold your breath on this one... I'm pretty sure it will be the same DVD deal. BUT DIGITAL!!!
Are we sure that Georgie boy sold SW? This is the kind of BS he would do, I bet he is still having a big wet orgasm with this release just because is the same of business cap he is used to.
I would love to see Frink running it!
darth_ender said:
Well, bear in mind that there are respectful ways to express one's opinion as well as disrespectful. If I say, "I think you're ideas are a bunch of crap, but it's simply a fact, so don't get offended," it's a little different than if I said, "Well, I feel that because there is no evidence for what you believe, it cannot possibly be true." You tend to speak in terms of the former, when the latter would certainly come off a little less condescending.
I understand what you are saying and I know that is hard to express such an honest opinion like ''what a bunch of crap'' in a way that feels respectful to a believer, I usually add ''with all due respect'' but I guess that won't help much since it sounds more condescending. I guess that you are right about the words I can use to express my opinions.
darth_ender said:
You do realize that there are brilliant people who understand the Bible and its contradictions and that there are challenges to one's faith in a secular and scientific world, brilliant people who are indeed quite scientific themselves, who still believe in God, right?
I'm aware of that fact but let me point out that all those great minds who have contributed to our scientific knowledge have done so by knowing, understanding and applying the scientific rules and laws of the disciplines they studied, they didn't just wake up and pray for all that scientific knowledge that, by the way, none of it is on the bible. What they believed about god and the connection/relationship of him with their scientific field was not related in any way on how actually the scientific world works. They discovered such amazing things by using the reason and logic behind the scientific method. Also there is a lot of great secular/atheist scientific minds but I don't see what difference does it make in my argument, I just feel I had to point that out.
Warbler said:
Can you prove he is dead? Do you really know for a fact that he is dead?
Well, so far he seems to pop up a lot on grilled cheese sandwiches and stones but nobody has show me any recent picture of him, like a 2015 footage of him hanging around on his last vacation trip or so... I can't prove that he is dead but at least is obvious that he is being physically absent from this planet since... well, since he died. Being physically absent from this world since the day you die could be used as a definition of ''dead''. We know that the body was never found but that does not automatically mean that he resurrected.
I shouldn't be the one providing evidence of the obvious absence, you made the claim that he is alive so you should present the evidence of that statement. So... Can you prove he is alive? Do you really know for a fact that he is alive?
Warbler said:
If for you he didn't exist how can you state so mannor of factly that he is dead? If someone is in fact dead, they had to have existed.
I was referring to the biblical reference of him being crucified and killed, a historical ''Jesus'' character may have existed at that time and I think some ancient references can be found in historic texts outside the bible but not the kind of ''I'm the son of god, make miracles and will save all the human race'' references.
To make it clear, for me the biblical Jesus character is just that, a fictional character like Harry Potter, the three little pigs, Zeus, Cinderella, Dionysus, Humpty Dumpty, Mitra, etc.
I love to see that you like to point out contradictions, I know a book full of them in case you want to read some ;)
Tobar said:
Should probably expect a lot of unwanted attention soon. The official Youtube channel just dropped a bunch of trailers for the upcoming digital release and the comment sections are filled with people advising others to skip it and torrent Despecialized instead. =/
I went to check the trailers and if the footage is from the actual releases then wait until Harmy and all the OT restoration people looks at those color changes they made, what a massacre haha
Warbler said:
dclarkg said:
darth_ender said:
I was also defending Jesus Christ. You see, to me he is not just some guy. He is not even some remote supernatural being. I see him as a very dear friend, someone for whom I have a great deal of love. You may criticize me, my beliefs, my church, its founder, its leaders, its doctrine, its scripture. You may criticize similar things for broader Christianity. But when you actually belittle the Man I love most in this universe, I really cannot take it. It's not just being thin-skinned. Most of you wouldn't take me insulting a family member. This is much like that. You don't have to believe in him, but please do not disrespect him.Are you aware that the guy is dead right?
You are aware of what we Christians believe happened about 2000 years ago this Sunday, right? We don't believe he is dead.
Yeah, I know what you guys believe but I was pointing out the fact.
darth_ender said:
See, I just don't see how even the most extreme Christian statements like an atheist will burn in a hell he doesn't even believe in could really be that offensive. But mocking someone special to me in as disrespectful language as possible, as Darth Id insisted on doing in particular, is very hurtful. I am always respectful towards atheists' reasons for lacking belief. I believe in the rights of atheists and do not condemn them or criticize them for their lack of belief. But if that respect cannot be reciprocated, I get irritated. If you don't think it would be hurtful to criticize Jesus Christ to a Christian, then clearly you've never loved. If you want to say you don't believe, you still don't have to call him bull****.
Of course hell threats don't insult me at all, I was referring that me as human being find offensive that another human being is willing to condemn to eternal suffering a person who just doesn't agree with his/her believes.
I do understand that Jesus is special for you, I get that, but I think you missed my point here. First let me clarify that for me Jesus as the biblical character didn't existed (the reasons why are matter of another discussion). If ANY Christian/Mormon makes a statement about believing that Jesus was real and that he is still alive somewhere then I'll just share my opinion on that which is: ''all of that is a bunch of bullshit'' and then we can proceed to a debate o whatever comes next. I don't think that me as an atheist should withhold my honest opinions on religion because it could offense those who believe and specially when I don't even believe none of that.
I'm not saying that atheist can deliberately be disrespectful but that is why I said that there is a difference between someone being offensive and you finding something offensive. I would never try to directly disrespect you or any believer by just saying nasty shit about Jesus or you faith in general ''just because'' but I will indeed speak out my mind when it comes to my honest views on Christianity and religion in general. If you say ''Jesus rocks'' and I say ''Jesus is not real and is absurd to believe so'' you may be offended by my opinion but I'm not being offensive at all.
I often do make fun of contradictions in the Christianity and I like to point at the flaws that I see and to be honest I find amusing how angry some believers can get when you ''disrespect'' religion just because you think is not true. I understand that some people is just plain aggressive and disrespectful and I don't agree on that, the true is that to be an asshole you don't have to be of any faith (or lack of it).
I think is important to establish that pretty much any atheist opinion at some point will be taken as a personal offense by believers even if those are articulated in the proper manners, this is understandable since the faith is something that operates at a very deep level in the identity of those who believe. I hope you understand that I will never try to disrespect you but if my opinions on religion offend you then I can't do nothing about it but if I'm being offensive in my ways then please point out my error.
mverta said:
Happy Easter.
Speaking of Lord Christ Almighty... take a look at this shot:
_Mike
LOL The best thing about the video is Mike trying to overcome the awful shock that the horrible BD monstrosity causes on him, he went speechless at least 3 times.
Nice job btw!!
darth_ender said:
I was also defending Jesus Christ. You see, to me he is not just some guy. He is not even some remote supernatural being. I see him as a very dear friend, someone for whom I have a great deal of love. You may criticize me, my beliefs, my church, its founder, its leaders, its doctrine, its scripture. You may criticize similar things for broader Christianity. But when you actually belittle the Man I love most in this universe, I really cannot take it. It's not just being thin-skinned. Most of you wouldn't take me insulting a family member. This is much like that. You don't have to believe in him, but please do not disrespect him.
Are you aware that the guy is dead right? You are getting mad for something that is not even intended to make YOU mad, I understand that you actually believe that the dude is somewhere/everywhere listening to everything/everybody making judgement/forgiving us all and etc. and you are defending(?) him but that is exactly the problem.
You see, I understand that everyone has a right to believe whatever they want and still deserve respect but sometimes just the fact of being an atheist is an offense to the believers. Religious people must understand that some of our atheist opinions will inevitable end in mocking, jokes, sarcasm and plain rejection of religious stuff. I know that for people of faith that is blasphemy and a total disrespect that of course it will make them offended but unfortunately and because of the same atheist opinions we hold there is nothing we can do about believers getting offended.
I sometimes get offended (as a human being) by religion because it manipulates people on how they should live their lives and push them to convince and/or impose their views in our social system (government, education, health, etc) where it should be a consensus and not an imposition of any kind. I also get offended when people tell others that they need Jesus in their heart or else they'll burn endlessly in hell. I get offended when religion takes the ability of people to stand on their own because of fear of imaginary tales written in many ages of our world that have minimum-to-none connection with the reality of how the world really works both socially and scientifically... and still I don't think that religious people should keep it shut because I may feel offended.
I want to clarify that I'm not saying all of this because of a specific comment, situation or person and is just to clarify what I'm trying to say here but bottom line it goes like this: if you say you are entitled to some respect for getting mad because of insults to a imaginary friend that you and many others believe in because an ancient book tells you so without no real sustainable evidence outside the book then I'm entitled to some respect as well when expresing my opinion about all religious tales being plain bullshit, for example I find hilarious when you said ''but please do not disrespect him'' when I don't even believe in the guy and therefore is obvious I'll keep expressing that in many ways .
Please don't get me wrong here, I genuinely like you and I'm not trying to insult you in any way but if my opinions insult you then I can't do anything about it, there is a difference between someone being offensive and you finding something offensive and when it comes to religious people that line is very thin. If you demanding respect means that I can't express what I really think about a particular subject then you're being disrespectful towards others who disagree with you and unfortunately I can't comply with that request.
I'm just being honest here ;)
poita said:
age said:
Wow! This is a very high quality scan.Thanks for sharing.
What wide gamut color profile was used for this?
I am trying to setting the black point on the reel 4,it's possible that the original footage is a bit dark?
I'm actually not all that happy with the quality of the scan, and will be rescanning next month.
Why is that? Did you see issues?
DuracellEnergizer said:
Dammit, people! Don't you know how to resize pictures on this board? ;-(
Actually no :(
hints please?
darth_ender said:
@dclarkeg, ideally there will be teachings here as well, as that is any Christian's prerogative when posting here. However, I love the art you've shared. The last picture was commissioned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, BTW, by the artist Harry Anderson, who was a Seventh Day Adventist but did a number of paintings for my church.
The first is also LDS, by Greg Olson, an LDS painter. So good choice of pictures.
Well I didn't choose those images based on being LDS artists, actually I didn't choose them for any particular reason other than being judo-christian themed but those facts are interesting.
Also why you guys bother to debate if we should/could post here other than christian images, I know the OP made a request but since this is a non-moderated area basically it means that anybody can post whatever the hell they want.
Back to the topic.
Another fine image:
DominicCobb said:
Here are some atheist pics and stuff I like:
Hahaha nice one!
DuracellEnergizer said:
Warbler said:
DominicCobb said:
Here are some atheist pics and stuff I like:
I am not seeing any pics.
Perhaps that's the point.
Bingo was his name
Possessed said:
It's really too bad you're forced to come here and post. I wish there was some way we could be free to just stay away from Off-Topic if we didn't like it.
I don't see why, the fact that this is a off-topic-non-moderated area makes is perfectly fine... and the ''atheist-pictures'' touch was neat.
team_negative1 said:
Here is a short sample from Reel 1:
Note that the color has not been corrected, and the large amount of grain.
=============================================
https://vimeo.com/123359322
Password : OT
Team Negative1
I love that despite the grain (that doesn't look that bad) it looks very detailed, I love the retro look of smaller prints!
This is an area where ALL members could have two threads if they wanted to, let Warbler be.
I prefer a Christian thread full of pictures rather than one full of teachings so let me contribute with some art.
_,,,^..^,,,_ said:
Here you are my upscale attempt - SuperResolution Vs MagicUp:
SuperResolution looks sharper but file size is almost the double of the MagicUp one, I supposed that is why.
This one is not only better than the original one with J-man and his gang but is also happens that the story is just as true as the biblical one (but far more interesting and coherent) :)
He meant lost him to the Dark Side, when he left him half-burned it was too late already so...
emanswfan said:
Interview w/ Simon Pegg on TFA set. Again, practical FX, a real surprise. :p
Collider: Since you and J.J. Abrams are such good friends, what are your thoughts on Star Wars?
PEGG: I’m immensely excited, having been lucky enough to visit the set. I’ve never been on a film set where everyone has been so invested in the material because they are emotionally and intrinsically linked to it, as people who work in an industry that was informed by the original films. Suddenly, they’re back in those environments, seeing those sets again and seeing J.J. work with real physical things, and models and puppets and masks. Also, the new technology will, of course, be involved in it. The original films were always about the cutting edge. They weren’t retro movies. They were very forward-thrusting, technological masterpieces, and as such, there will be that stuff. It’s going to be extraordinary. I’m so excited for people to see it. It’s going to be everything that we wanted 16 years ago and didn’t get.
Collider: It’s so cool because it’s a combination of this vastly different technology with a franchise that makes you feel the wonder of being a kid again.
PEGG: Totally! I took my daughter to the set, and she met BB-8, the droid you see in the trailer. She sat with him for ages, and just talked to him. The guys were operating it, just off camera, and she was there. I said, “Come on, we’ve gotta go,” and she said, “I just want to spend some more time with him and have another hug.” It’s just a ball with a thing on it, but it’s a testament to that character, how much he’s going to impact on audiences because he’s so full of life. And that goes across, for everything. Also, to see the old staples again is going to blow people’s minds.
This sounds nice and I'm really excited about the TFA, besides, the PT sucks so bad that ANY effort to raise the bar will actually succeed.
DrCrowTStarwars said:
It's an Asus 12x BDR DL drive. I have tried three different brands and my firmware is up today according to their website. I even tried installing old drivers on it.
I have used both windows built in burner and all of my software and I get the same message. The disc burns to the point where windows tells me "Finishing disc" and on the programs it says "Writing lead out" and then I always get the message "Unable to burn disc" and the drive just stops.
To tell the truth after doing some more research I think that it may just be that the burning lazer has died on my drive and I just have to save up for another one. this drive has served me for four years or so without a problem so it's not the drive's fault if that is the case, I just have to save up for a new drive.
I just find it strange that it doesn't fail until writing the lead out. Then again I am not an expert so maybe the drive has to do something different when burning that that is what is failing.
Any way I am going to try hooking it up to my dad's computer tomorrow and that should tell me if it is the drive or windows. I feel kind of stupid for not thinking of that a month ago.
Thanks for the help.
I don't get why it fails until the end, It could be the lens since BR recorders have one for blue ray and one of DVD/CD. Try burning at a slower speed and see what happens
DrCrowTStarwars said:
Okay my computer has started doing something really weird and I can't find any answers on tech support sites so this is my last hope.
I have a bluray burner drive on my windows seven computer and it has always worked fine but lately something weird is happening. It burns CDs and dvds just fine and it still reads Bluray discs without a problem but for some reason no matter what program I use it refuses to burn data to bluray discs.
Now normally I would think the burning lazer died or something but what is happening is that it is burning data to the discs and when I take them out I can see where they have been burnt but for some reason the computer is just giving up and refusing to burn the final step onto the discs so they can be read by a computer. It just gives up and says an error happened as soon as it tries to close the discs and leave me with a disc that has data on it but it can't be read by anything.
As I said this happens no matter what program or type of disc I use, I have tried three different types of discs that have never given me problems before and none of them work.
I have tried reinstalling the drive, updating the drivers, updating windows 7, and reinstalling all my burning software but nothing works. Even using the data burning program that is built into windows and never lets me down doesn't work.
This has been going on for more then a month and I am out of ideas and it is a big problem for me since my computer is my DVR and most of my blank discs are bluray discs and I don't have the money to buy new discs or a USB hard drive right now. My hard drive is starting to fill up because I have no way to get video files off of it.
If anyone has any idea what is going on and can help me I would be very grateful.
Thank you for your time.
Try updating the driver firmware if available, also try another brand of blank BR discs. Also try another burning software. Also, which brand and model of BR drive do you have?
I'm using Windows 8.1 and all fine here, windows 7 is also rock solid. Windows Vista is actually Windows ME 2.0 :p
''That's 'cause droids don't pull people's arms out of their socket when they lose. Wookiees are known to do that''