Habakuk
Apr 15, 10:30 AM
But are you saying homosexuals should change it if they could?
They should change maybe if they could (but as much as I know they can't and we have to acknowledge that fact) AND if they WANT to do so �because otherwise they wouldn't be able to stand their "handicap" and consider suicide. That would be easier than to change their sex with surgeries, heavy medicaments and so on.
Too many "if�" I know. But you asked.
Meet some likeminded persons who can handle being bullied sometimes. That happens to everyone in life and is no reason to get mad and desperate. Learn to get a "strong skin" and how to ignore those *******s. Essentially they are poor people loaded with psychic complexes.
I learned that by driving cars. First I always shouted and called them things (learned that silly behavior from my father). Then I realized that all those undisciplined drivers will kill or damage themselves from alone sooner or later�no need to play the role of an angry judge.
They should change maybe if they could (but as much as I know they can't and we have to acknowledge that fact) AND if they WANT to do so �because otherwise they wouldn't be able to stand their "handicap" and consider suicide. That would be easier than to change their sex with surgeries, heavy medicaments and so on.
Too many "if�" I know. But you asked.
Meet some likeminded persons who can handle being bullied sometimes. That happens to everyone in life and is no reason to get mad and desperate. Learn to get a "strong skin" and how to ignore those *******s. Essentially they are poor people loaded with psychic complexes.
I learned that by driving cars. First I always shouted and called them things (learned that silly behavior from my father). Then I realized that all those undisciplined drivers will kill or damage themselves from alone sooner or later�no need to play the role of an angry judge.
slffl
Oct 7, 12:05 PM
To quote the bit on Jimmy Fallon... 'Who Cares?'
Obviously market share doesn't mean crap as is evident in the OS market.
Obviously market share doesn't mean crap as is evident in the OS market.
Speedy2
Oct 7, 04:17 PM
No, they most likely wouldn't. There is no reason to think that it would - it's conjecture. (http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay)
Have you actually READ the link you posted?
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Have you actually READ the link you posted?
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 26, 12:32 PM
Christianity, especially Catholicism has it's own colorful (blood red) history.
As I said elsewhere there is no moral equivalence. It took Augustine's and Aquinas' great rambling treatises to justify warfare, for instance.
In the Qur'an and the Hadith war is encouraged and its virtues extolled.
I wish people would stop trying to equate the wars of Christianity (and of that mainly Western Christianity) with Islam's modern terrorism and calls for warfare against the infidel.
In Islamic Law non-muslims are considered najiss, that means ritually impure, down to our souls, our essences. Christians are reviled especially because they practice "shirk", a law forbidding the joining of others to allah. Jews are designated as apes and pigs in the Qur'an.
there is no equivalence between Islam and Christianity.
As I said elsewhere there is no moral equivalence. It took Augustine's and Aquinas' great rambling treatises to justify warfare, for instance.
In the Qur'an and the Hadith war is encouraged and its virtues extolled.
I wish people would stop trying to equate the wars of Christianity (and of that mainly Western Christianity) with Islam's modern terrorism and calls for warfare against the infidel.
In Islamic Law non-muslims are considered najiss, that means ritually impure, down to our souls, our essences. Christians are reviled especially because they practice "shirk", a law forbidding the joining of others to allah. Jews are designated as apes and pigs in the Qur'an.
there is no equivalence between Islam and Christianity.
winmacguy
Mar 18, 02:17 PM
It's a great convenience until the RIAA gets pissed and either changes their mind about downloadable music or tells Apple to hike their prices.
We shouldn't worry though, Apple will defeat this in no time.
Maybe some big company should tell the greedy money grubbing RIAA to "go jump in the Lake" and just leave things how they are instead of trying to change Apples DRM and create even more restrictions to what you can do with legally purchased music. Maybe if the greedy money grubbing RIAA looked at changeing its business model to bring it inline with the newer digital age it might find some better way of doing things. After all there is NO evidence that file sharing kills music and CD sales.
What the evidence actually tells us is file sharers are downloading singles which the music industry doesnt cater for so they get the impression that they are losing sales.
Hmmmm methinks that maybe the RIAA needs to adjust its buiness model to meet the changing music environment rather than change the business environment to keep with its outdated business model.
Cheers Winmacguy
PS I was aware as mentioned in the article that in Apple's case you still have to purchase the music before you can strip the DRM from it unlike Napsters music which you onliy have to pay $15 for as much as you can eat!
We shouldn't worry though, Apple will defeat this in no time.
Maybe some big company should tell the greedy money grubbing RIAA to "go jump in the Lake" and just leave things how they are instead of trying to change Apples DRM and create even more restrictions to what you can do with legally purchased music. Maybe if the greedy money grubbing RIAA looked at changeing its business model to bring it inline with the newer digital age it might find some better way of doing things. After all there is NO evidence that file sharing kills music and CD sales.
What the evidence actually tells us is file sharers are downloading singles which the music industry doesnt cater for so they get the impression that they are losing sales.
Hmmmm methinks that maybe the RIAA needs to adjust its buiness model to meet the changing music environment rather than change the business environment to keep with its outdated business model.
Cheers Winmacguy
PS I was aware as mentioned in the article that in Apple's case you still have to purchase the music before you can strip the DRM from it unlike Napsters music which you onliy have to pay $15 for as much as you can eat!
diamond.g
Apr 21, 08:51 AM
So are you going to tell me that paying for tethering ON TOP OF DATA YOU ALREADY PAID FOR is fair? Data is data is data... 4gb is 4gb no matter how I use it. Tethering cost are a joke!:mad: /end rant
You are joking right?
Well, just think of it as paying toll on a road that your taxes had already paid for (probably a bad example).
You are joking right?
Well, just think of it as paying toll on a road that your taxes had already paid for (probably a bad example).
dobbin
Sep 20, 06:09 AM
Er, that's what your Mac is for.
All these calls for adding tuners, hard drives and burners are missing the point. Those functions belong in the host computer. iTV is just a method of getting the content from your Mac/PC to your stereo or TV.
Yeah Ok, thats fine, but then I also need a machine to get content from my TV/tuner/satelite to my Mac.
As I understand it, iTV is only for wireless streaming in one direction. If I need a cable to get broadcast programmes into my Mac, then I may as well use that cable to get the content back onto my TV!
All these calls for adding tuners, hard drives and burners are missing the point. Those functions belong in the host computer. iTV is just a method of getting the content from your Mac/PC to your stereo or TV.
Yeah Ok, thats fine, but then I also need a machine to get content from my TV/tuner/satelite to my Mac.
As I understand it, iTV is only for wireless streaming in one direction. If I need a cable to get broadcast programmes into my Mac, then I may as well use that cable to get the content back onto my TV!
skunk
Apr 24, 03:40 PM
Basically, follow the local law until the point where is will cause you to sin AND be in direct violation of the Sharia Law framework.Give an example, please.
KnightWRX
May 2, 03:24 PM
It decompressed the zip file and executes code to launch an installer. This is considered a safe action because the user still has to continue to run the installer.
Installation of MacDefender via the installer requires password authentication by the user.
So Safari auto-downloads, unarchives and auto-executes something, but you think it is safe because it's an installer ? :confused:
I'm sorry, but I'm still curious about the "auto-execute" part. Why would it run the installer automatically after decompressing it. That sounds quite "unsafe" to me. Even without administrator privilege, that means code can still run that can affect the current user's account.
like there's no such thing as a virus for Mac...
Link to Mac OS X virus please. Anything, a name, a description of what it does, something.
Viruses and malware are not the same thing.
I'll just leave this right here...http://www.clamxav.com/
What's your point with ClamAV ? It's the defacto Unix anti-virus scanner that's used to scan for Windows viruses in e-mail servers usually.
Installation of MacDefender via the installer requires password authentication by the user.
So Safari auto-downloads, unarchives and auto-executes something, but you think it is safe because it's an installer ? :confused:
I'm sorry, but I'm still curious about the "auto-execute" part. Why would it run the installer automatically after decompressing it. That sounds quite "unsafe" to me. Even without administrator privilege, that means code can still run that can affect the current user's account.
like there's no such thing as a virus for Mac...
Link to Mac OS X virus please. Anything, a name, a description of what it does, something.
Viruses and malware are not the same thing.
I'll just leave this right here...http://www.clamxav.com/
What's your point with ClamAV ? It's the defacto Unix anti-virus scanner that's used to scan for Windows viruses in e-mail servers usually.
OdduWon
Nov 3, 11:23 AM
Someone give multimedia 8 cores please. so he will have more time to bring the know. :D
you rock ;)
you rock ;)
mdriftmeyer
Apr 12, 11:19 PM
Reading the comments about $299 being a pretty good deal truly makes me laugh. Ten years ago a system of such capacity would be > $50K and you're downplaying $299.
Grow some perspective.
Grow some perspective.
Multimedia
Sep 26, 01:44 PM
well i might be getting a mac pro soon (not sure yet)
but if i do, my question is when will we see an 8-core mac pro?My GUESS is Probably November or December at the latest. It will Probably simply be a Dual Clovertown Processor option added to the current BTO page with a new processor pricing lineup. It will Probably be a silent upgrade with a press release.
but if i do, my question is when will we see an 8-core mac pro?My GUESS is Probably November or December at the latest. It will Probably simply be a Dual Clovertown Processor option added to the current BTO page with a new processor pricing lineup. It will Probably be a silent upgrade with a press release.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Lets just ignore that technologies such as solar have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade and move on to the important stuff:
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
jchung
Mar 18, 12:16 PM
Check out this post on modmyi.com - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-news/755094-t-cracking-down-mywi-tethering.html#post5900780
AT&T is just trying to bully people into the tethering plan.
AT&T is just trying to bully people into the tethering plan.
alexf
Aug 29, 12:02 PM
Greenpeace can suck my left toe.
Thank you for the very intelligent and enlightening comment. People like you (who don't give a rat's a$$ about environmental issues) are exactly what the world needs more of at this point in time.
Thank you for the very intelligent and enlightening comment. People like you (who don't give a rat's a$$ about environmental issues) are exactly what the world needs more of at this point in time.
leekohler
Apr 15, 12:20 PM
Insulting language never helps.
Here is a link to a *gasp* dictionary!
linky (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chastity)
Definition a and b.
Oh snap! :D That had to sting a little. ;)
Sorry. That was rude of me.
It's OK, but you were also wrong, as indicated by the dictionary. Let's try to bring it down a notch. ;)
Here is a link to a *gasp* dictionary!
linky (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chastity)
Definition a and b.
Oh snap! :D That had to sting a little. ;)
Sorry. That was rude of me.
It's OK, but you were also wrong, as indicated by the dictionary. Let's try to bring it down a notch. ;)
DemSpursBro
Apr 11, 08:21 AM
I love building my own rig every year and it keeps me current with the ever evolving computer technology.
Just out of curiosity, why do you build one each year?
Just out of curiosity, why do you build one each year?
danielwsmithee
Sep 12, 03:53 PM
I have to disagree with many of the comments on this thread. I think this is an ideal device. I don't want a computer connected to my TV I want to gain access to the content on my computer on my TV. It is two different ways of looking at these products.
As far as not having a DVR/tuner that should be done on your computer. The products available from elgato eyeTV etc. are already excellent and probably much better then Apple could start up and hope to compete with. EyeTV is already compatible with iTunes and the iPod, and it will be for this too. You just have to realize that the recording is going to happen at your computer not your TV. I really think the combination of eyeTV, iTunes and iTV is going to be much better then any competitors MCE etc.
It all goes back to Apple's philosophy of making the computer the center of your digital life. The TV is just a tool now to view what you have on your computer.
This does also offer one advantage over the mini besides price component video.
As far as not having a DVR/tuner that should be done on your computer. The products available from elgato eyeTV etc. are already excellent and probably much better then Apple could start up and hope to compete with. EyeTV is already compatible with iTunes and the iPod, and it will be for this too. You just have to realize that the recording is going to happen at your computer not your TV. I really think the combination of eyeTV, iTunes and iTV is going to be much better then any competitors MCE etc.
It all goes back to Apple's philosophy of making the computer the center of your digital life. The TV is just a tool now to view what you have on your computer.
This does also offer one advantage over the mini besides price component video.
NathanMuir
Apr 24, 12:08 PM
And Fear.
IMO, mainstream religion hasn't been about fear since the Middle/ Dark Ages.
Power and control? Sure, depending on your view of religion.
IMO, mainstream religion hasn't been about fear since the Middle/ Dark Ages.
Power and control? Sure, depending on your view of religion.
dejo
Oct 8, 09:34 AM
The need of first buying a Mac and then learning how to use it, the SDK and Objective-C will stop too many great developers from giving it a try.
Great developers are not inhibited by things like that. In fact, they often consider it a challenge. It's lazy developers that don't welcome the opportunity to embrace different technology and just too-quickly dismiss it.
Great developers are not inhibited by things like that. In fact, they often consider it a challenge. It's lazy developers that don't welcome the opportunity to embrace different technology and just too-quickly dismiss it.
FightTheFuture
Feb 17, 01:20 AM
No one seems to notice this. i don't agree with much of your post, but i agree with the sentiment. i'm tiring of the Google = Good, Apple = Evil heard around the boards.
they are both companies that are just trying to make money. sadly, people paint Apple as the bad guy either because 1) the iPod was extremely successful or 2) they assumed apple would eventually go bankrupt 10 years ago and are upset that it didn't happen. luckily Gen Y'ers who don't care about what computers run facebook the best are buying products based on what they want, and not which processor is in it.
will there be more android phones than iPhones in the world? probably. but right now there are more blackberrys, more symbian based phones being sold. the iPhone is selling just fine. just because there are a lot of great phones on the market doesn't mean apple will sell less than 8 million iPhones a quarter.
they are both companies that are just trying to make money. sadly, people paint Apple as the bad guy either because 1) the iPod was extremely successful or 2) they assumed apple would eventually go bankrupt 10 years ago and are upset that it didn't happen. luckily Gen Y'ers who don't care about what computers run facebook the best are buying products based on what they want, and not which processor is in it.
will there be more android phones than iPhones in the world? probably. but right now there are more blackberrys, more symbian based phones being sold. the iPhone is selling just fine. just because there are a lot of great phones on the market doesn't mean apple will sell less than 8 million iPhones a quarter.
Machead III
Aug 29, 11:44 AM
Just look at peopel today, even in this forum. Just 5 years ago there would be far less worried faces around, we left that to the lab coats and their crackpot theories.
I guess it was the recent natural disasters and the heatwaves that did it.
Well, if that's what's got you worried, then good. I hate to say it, but you need to be very, very worried. You thought this summer was hot? Think what it will be like in 10, 20, 50 years.
Think what it will be like in a 100.
Life on Earth is notoriously sensitive to temperatures. We were sweating like pigs with the increase of only a fractions of a degree.
By 2100 if we don't implement vast changes, and this is even if we maintain the rate we're at now, the Earth will have warmed by about 4 degrees C.
At this point human life expectancies will have probably halved. Give it another 100 years or so and that's it, game over, we're done, another species added to the no doubt vast list of intelligent species throughout the universe that have destroyed themselves in the pursuit of wealth.
I guess it was the recent natural disasters and the heatwaves that did it.
Well, if that's what's got you worried, then good. I hate to say it, but you need to be very, very worried. You thought this summer was hot? Think what it will be like in 10, 20, 50 years.
Think what it will be like in a 100.
Life on Earth is notoriously sensitive to temperatures. We were sweating like pigs with the increase of only a fractions of a degree.
By 2100 if we don't implement vast changes, and this is even if we maintain the rate we're at now, the Earth will have warmed by about 4 degrees C.
At this point human life expectancies will have probably halved. Give it another 100 years or so and that's it, game over, we're done, another species added to the no doubt vast list of intelligent species throughout the universe that have destroyed themselves in the pursuit of wealth.
r1ch4rd
Apr 22, 10:05 PM
In some areas of the US people look down on if you admit that you don't believe in God. People can be very vicious about it and at the work place it's best not to voice your opinion or the Christians will gang up against you. I've seen this happen several times.
That's a real shame and I hope that improves for you. I am proud that we appear to be more open minded on this side of the pond. I have had plenty of people disagree with me, but we can agree to accept our differences.
I was once pointed to an interesting indication of the difference in culture. In the USA I believe the $1 bill contains the phrase "In God We Trust". In the UK, we have Charles Darwin on our currency! He appears on the �10 note and a recent �2 coin. The �2 coin changes fairly regularly though.
That's a real shame and I hope that improves for you. I am proud that we appear to be more open minded on this side of the pond. I have had plenty of people disagree with me, but we can agree to accept our differences.
I was once pointed to an interesting indication of the difference in culture. In the USA I believe the $1 bill contains the phrase "In God We Trust". In the UK, we have Charles Darwin on our currency! He appears on the �10 note and a recent �2 coin. The �2 coin changes fairly regularly though.
Apple OC
Apr 23, 02:23 AM
The six creative "days" occurred after the creation of the "heavens and the earth." That means the universe (and the earth) was in existence for an indefinite amount of time before the creative days began.
The word translated "day" can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. Genesis 2:4 refers to God creating the "heavens and the earth" in a single day, yet Exodus 20:11 says it took six days to create the "heavens and the earth." By calling light day and darkness night, it's actually showing that only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term "day." When the sun comes up at your house and then goes down, does that equal an entire day, lasting 24 hours? Psalms 90:4 says that a thousand years to man is merely a day to humans. So how can you logically conclude that the term "day" is strictly indicating a 24-hour period?
sounds a little conflicting ... I write it off as jibberish ... I'll stick with science instead
The word translated "day" can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. Genesis 2:4 refers to God creating the "heavens and the earth" in a single day, yet Exodus 20:11 says it took six days to create the "heavens and the earth." By calling light day and darkness night, it's actually showing that only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term "day." When the sun comes up at your house and then goes down, does that equal an entire day, lasting 24 hours? Psalms 90:4 says that a thousand years to man is merely a day to humans. So how can you logically conclude that the term "day" is strictly indicating a 24-hour period?
sounds a little conflicting ... I write it off as jibberish ... I'll stick with science instead
No comments:
Post a Comment