Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:40 AM
I have a great one: until 1973 the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental illness until they looked at some evidence and found the only harm associated with being gay was the harm inflicted on gay people by hateful a-holes, and without the a-holes, gay people are as happy and well-adjusted as anyone else.
I meant what I said I didn't know whether homosexuality was a mental illness. But I think it's important to distinguish between a mental illness and a that has psychological and/or environmental causes. Mental illnesses include clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, and others. Inferiority complexes, poor self-esteem, and some irrational fears, say, are psychological problems, not mental illnesses. I think homosexuality is a psychological problem with psychological and/or environmental causes. Many same-sex-attracted people think they're born that way or even that homosexuality is genetic. I disagree with them. I think homosexuality begins when the same-sex-attracted person is about 2. If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
I wouldn't be surprised to know that the American Psychiatric Association changed the DSM because of political pressure from special interest groups who disagreed with what the APA thought about homosexuality.
Remember what I said about induction and the asymmetry between confirmation and refutation because even an inductively justified majority opinion can be false.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
I may not have written clearly enough because I am taking a position, Nicolosi's position. Is there a chance that Nicolosi's same-sex-attracted critics dismiss his opinion because they're biased? Gelfin says that there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological causes. But Nicolosi and his colleagues think they are presenting such evidence. Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.
I meant what I said I didn't know whether homosexuality was a mental illness. But I think it's important to distinguish between a mental illness and a that has psychological and/or environmental causes. Mental illnesses include clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, and others. Inferiority complexes, poor self-esteem, and some irrational fears, say, are psychological problems, not mental illnesses. I think homosexuality is a psychological problem with psychological and/or environmental causes. Many same-sex-attracted people think they're born that way or even that homosexuality is genetic. I disagree with them. I think homosexuality begins when the same-sex-attracted person is about 2. If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
I wouldn't be surprised to know that the American Psychiatric Association changed the DSM because of political pressure from special interest groups who disagreed with what the APA thought about homosexuality.
Remember what I said about induction and the asymmetry between confirmation and refutation because even an inductively justified majority opinion can be false.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
I may not have written clearly enough because I am taking a position, Nicolosi's position. Is there a chance that Nicolosi's same-sex-attracted critics dismiss his opinion because they're biased? Gelfin says that there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological causes. But Nicolosi and his colleagues think they are presenting such evidence. Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 10:18 AM
I see no reason why Apple won't have a low cost tablet when competitors drop their prices. They are already very aggressive on pricing, and I think we see in the iPod market their approach to pricing these sorts of devices: You can step up from $49 (in the U.S.) all the way to an iPod touch. Hard to beat Apple on pricing, and this is ten years after the iPod was introduced.
So if Acer or whoever wants to drop the tablet price from $499 to $399 or eventually $299, Apple will be right there with them. After all, Apple gets the best component prices now, so how can anyone undercut them?
Unless you mean the piece-of-junk plastic tablet ripoffs that can sell for $199 or something. Apple won't make junk versions, and those will win on price. But anyone who buys those deserves the same headaches as people who buy stripped-down Dell boxes.
So if Acer or whoever wants to drop the tablet price from $499 to $399 or eventually $299, Apple will be right there with them. After all, Apple gets the best component prices now, so how can anyone undercut them?
Unless you mean the piece-of-junk plastic tablet ripoffs that can sell for $199 or something. Apple won't make junk versions, and those will win on price. But anyone who buys those deserves the same headaches as people who buy stripped-down Dell boxes.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 09:52 AM
Exactly what I was going to say.
<high five>
That particular assumption is one of my pet peeves. :D
(The assumption that God is the Christian version.)
<high five>
That particular assumption is one of my pet peeves. :D
(The assumption that God is the Christian version.)
puma1552
Mar 14, 01:04 AM
Yea, this is one of the few controversial posts I've made here, I expected some criticism, and likely deserve it as I definitely don't get the whole picture, then again who does.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.
BJNY
Nov 1, 04:08 AM
Clovertons to run hot until 2007 according to:
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/11/01/intel_fwives_core/
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/11/01/intel_fwives_core/
dukebound85
Apr 6, 12:07 PM
One off the top of my head is that everything costs money application wise, there is very little freeware.
Here is a nice site for freeware I have come across in the past:)
http://web.mac.com/simon_elliott/simon_elliott@mac.com/Software.html
Here is a nice site for freeware I have come across in the past:)
http://web.mac.com/simon_elliott/simon_elliott@mac.com/Software.html
iJohnHenry
Apr 27, 04:49 PM
Before Anton van Leeuwenhoek discovered bacteria with his microscope, many probably would have insisted that there was not a shred of evidence that any microbe existed.
We can see the ongoing effects of microbes all around us. Can you say the same for your god?
I expect that we will need a very big microscope to see God.
Is this why we have Hubble??
I doubt it, for with every amazing image we see, the vastness and complexity of the known Universe reduces us even further to the importance of gnats.
We can see the ongoing effects of microbes all around us. Can you say the same for your god?
I expect that we will need a very big microscope to see God.
Is this why we have Hubble??
I doubt it, for with every amazing image we see, the vastness and complexity of the known Universe reduces us even further to the importance of gnats.
dontwalkhand
Apr 9, 12:49 AM
Why doesnt Apple allow you to plug a controller in the 30 pin adaptor? Wouldnt that be the best of both worlds?
Because they do not want games that only work if you buy the controller.
Because they do not want games that only work if you buy the controller.
GGJstudios
May 3, 05:30 PM
You told the 100% gospel truth. There IS malware for the Mac
Yes, there is malware for the Mac. I don't see anyone in this thread or others claiming that there isn't. ElCidRo's statement implied that there was a prevalent myth that Macs had no malware which is not true, and triggered the negative responses by throwing out the "fanboy" attack. It was very clear that the post was inflammatory in nature.
What IS true is that there are no viruses in the wild that run on Mac OS X, and there hasn't been for the past 10 years, since it was introduced. The handful of trojans that exist are easily avoided/thwarted by a user exercising a reasonable degree of common sense. It has nothing to do with being a "fanboy". It has to do with facts.
Yes, there is malware for the Mac. I don't see anyone in this thread or others claiming that there isn't. ElCidRo's statement implied that there was a prevalent myth that Macs had no malware which is not true, and triggered the negative responses by throwing out the "fanboy" attack. It was very clear that the post was inflammatory in nature.
What IS true is that there are no viruses in the wild that run on Mac OS X, and there hasn't been for the past 10 years, since it was introduced. The handful of trojans that exist are easily avoided/thwarted by a user exercising a reasonable degree of common sense. It has nothing to do with being a "fanboy". It has to do with facts.
OllyW
Oct 7, 12:14 PM
One advantage I see Android having over the iPhone is the fact that it has a number of manufacturers releasing new models throughout the year, keeping their phones fresh and up to date and with good availability through multiple operators.
Apple seems to be set on a one update per year cycle. This means they end up having a 3 or 4 month flat period when they don't sell many iPhones because everyone knows a new model is about to be released, followed by a couple of months of madness as everyone scrambles to get the new phone and the supply chain struggles to keep up.
Apple seems to be set on a one update per year cycle. This means they end up having a 3 or 4 month flat period when they don't sell many iPhones because everyone knows a new model is about to be released, followed by a couple of months of madness as everyone scrambles to get the new phone and the supply chain struggles to keep up.
G58
Feb 22, 01:37 PM
...I don't think Apple has done anything exceptional. They built off of their popular iPod brand. Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod. Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start.
I don't really know where to begin to reply to this simplistic tripe.
In your world, are the policemen made of sugar by any chance?
You: "don't think Apple has done anything exceptional." Buy a Nexus one then.
"They built off of their popular iPod brand."
How did they create the touchscreen iPhone BRAND from the iPod Touch BRAND - a product that was launches after it?
iPhone Release date: June 29, 2007
iPod Touch 1st generation Release date: September 13, 2007
Brands don't build technology. Brands only build limited awareness and trust. But if the iPhone wasn't as good as it is, and as new as it was when it was first released, it would not only not have benefited from any brand benefits created by previous iPod model, it would have failed, and damaged the iPod brand too.
"Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod."
If this was the case, it would be Nokia and RIM duking it out now. Your entire theory is immature and utterly flawed. It's Apple's business model that created this situation, aided and abetted by an utterly moribund mobile phone market prior to their intervention.
"Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start."
Here I agree, but not for any of the reasons you've proposed. Apple's ace is OS X. The version used to power the iPhone is a cut down version of the full OS with a touch screen UI. Every other mobile manufacturer was always going to be at a disadvantage as soon as Apple decided to play in their pool.
I don't really know where to begin to reply to this simplistic tripe.
In your world, are the policemen made of sugar by any chance?
You: "don't think Apple has done anything exceptional." Buy a Nexus one then.
"They built off of their popular iPod brand."
How did they create the touchscreen iPhone BRAND from the iPod Touch BRAND - a product that was launches after it?
iPhone Release date: June 29, 2007
iPod Touch 1st generation Release date: September 13, 2007
Brands don't build technology. Brands only build limited awareness and trust. But if the iPhone wasn't as good as it is, and as new as it was when it was first released, it would not only not have benefited from any brand benefits created by previous iPod model, it would have failed, and damaged the iPod brand too.
"Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod."
If this was the case, it would be Nokia and RIM duking it out now. Your entire theory is immature and utterly flawed. It's Apple's business model that created this situation, aided and abetted by an utterly moribund mobile phone market prior to their intervention.
"Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start."
Here I agree, but not for any of the reasons you've proposed. Apple's ace is OS X. The version used to power the iPhone is a cut down version of the full OS with a touch screen UI. Every other mobile manufacturer was always going to be at a disadvantage as soon as Apple decided to play in their pool.
CaoCao
Mar 24, 07:16 PM
"People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behaviour between people of the same sex," he told the current session of the Human Rights Council....
"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said."
Is this not exactly what the Catholic Church has done to homosexuals? Do they not have "Fundamental human rights"?
Sounds like hate to me.
Not supporting actions is hate?
You do real that Tomasi is talking about the attacks on "People who criticise gay sexual relations..."
"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said."
Is this not exactly what the Catholic Church has done to homosexuals? Do they not have "Fundamental human rights"?
Sounds like hate to me.
Not supporting actions is hate?
You do real that Tomasi is talking about the attacks on "People who criticise gay sexual relations..."
slinger1968
Nov 2, 08:17 PM
The Source Article Of This Thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2982349&postcount=1) "It'll be strictly a marketing decision from there, say insiders, as the Mac maker wrapped up hardware preparations for this brawny beast during the tail-end of the back-to-school season."There's nothing in any of those articles that mentions the extra heat that the new CPU's will produce. I'm skeptical of marketing release type stories without bench tests to back up their claims.
Hopefully Apple has indeed already addressed the additional heat issue but I guess I'll wait for the actual benchmarks. I believe the NDA's are up tomorrow so the real data should come in soon.
Hopefully Apple has indeed already addressed the additional heat issue but I guess I'll wait for the actual benchmarks. I believe the NDA's are up tomorrow so the real data should come in soon.
supermacdesign
Sep 12, 06:20 PM
I am dying to see what this thing looks like. Does anyone have an image of it?
Please?!
Please?!
myemailisjustin
Mar 18, 10:24 AM
I've never once tethered or hotspotted yet my usage for last month was over 9GB....this is just normal iPhone usage for me, they better not automatically change me to the tiered plan. :mad:
neiltc13
Apr 9, 06:00 PM
The point is the line between these two camps is being blurred. It's a feature of the post-PC era. Look at what the App Store games section is evolving into - daily, monthly, yearly. It's pretty astounding. Soon, "hardcore gaming" will characterize other devices in addition to consoles. THIS is the real revolution that's going on when it comes to the gaming market. Apple is redefining it.
You mean game developers are redefining it. What was the last game Apple released? Texas Hold'Em with no online multiplayer? Riiight.
You mean game developers are redefining it. What was the last game Apple released? Texas Hold'Em with no online multiplayer? Riiight.
Howdr
Mar 18, 12:47 PM
Bust every last one of them AT&T!! :) In fact start with this person.
LOL for what using 900mb of data last month.........:D
You people are too much............:)
I know the road At&t is on, they are trying to make money.
I posted the lost revenue
I posted the reason they hate unlimited
you can make excuse after excuse for At&t bottom line is
If I have 5gb lets say, then I should be free to use up to 5gb without worry.
The facts get distorted by deceptive TOS's from At&t and peoples own agendas.
Agendas on both sides
The stupid people who use 10's of GB a month to download movies and torrents
The people who are righteous and like to point fingers and "I told you so"
I haven't tethered in 6 months.
:cool:
LOL for what using 900mb of data last month.........:D
You people are too much............:)
I know the road At&t is on, they are trying to make money.
I posted the lost revenue
I posted the reason they hate unlimited
you can make excuse after excuse for At&t bottom line is
If I have 5gb lets say, then I should be free to use up to 5gb without worry.
The facts get distorted by deceptive TOS's from At&t and peoples own agendas.
Agendas on both sides
The stupid people who use 10's of GB a month to download movies and torrents
The people who are righteous and like to point fingers and "I told you so"
I haven't tethered in 6 months.
:cool:
whatever
Oct 25, 10:48 PM
Well based on nothing really except I've been using apple a long time, worked in their retail stores for a while, and know how they like to be cutting edge (yet dependable and pretty), I'd say count on 8 cores for xmas. Maybe not november, but maybe so. I think the thought alone of HP and Dell releasing prosumer workstations with 8 cores leaving Apple behind when Vista launches is just too much to let slide for Apple.
And why is that? Christmas is a big time of year to sell Professional Machines? Nope. Expect all of Apple's energy to be going into consumer products for the rest of the year.
Don't be suprirsed that iTV (or dare I say a video iPod) get's launched in November, right before Thanksgiving.
And why is that? Christmas is a big time of year to sell Professional Machines? Nope. Expect all of Apple's energy to be going into consumer products for the rest of the year.
Don't be suprirsed that iTV (or dare I say a video iPod) get's launched in November, right before Thanksgiving.
Dooger
Apr 28, 08:14 AM
The very second Apple Stores receive shipments of this fad, they're gone. I can't get a fad at the moment because everyone else and their dog buys them before I have a chance.
I remember this happened during the pokemon phenomenon. And Charlie Sheen's one man show keeps selling out too. What's your point?
I remember this happened during the pokemon phenomenon. And Charlie Sheen's one man show keeps selling out too. What's your point?
Multimedia
Oct 30, 02:26 AM
In theory you're correct, Multimedia.
In practice, it is possible that a multi-threaded program might have synchronization or logic bugs that don't show up with 4 CPUs, but do show up with 8 CPUs. For example:
Thread_ID tid[4];
for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++)
{
In practice, it is possible that a multi-threaded program might have synchronization or logic bugs that don't show up with 4 CPUs, but do show up with 8 CPUs. For example:
Thread_ID tid[4];
for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++)
{
Evangelion
Jul 12, 03:55 AM
I still maintain that there's a "hole" in the new line-up, which is there isn't a single-cpu high-clock-rate system. I think Apple needs a Core 2 Extreme based system with the Conroe XE CPU (initially 2.93 GHz then 3.2 GHz).
Since your concern is the high price of the Xeon, I find it ironic that you want to use XE in a Mac, since XE is also VERY expensive. I believe they cost about $1000 a piece.
I believe that the Woodcrests start at around $400, which isn't outrageous price. For the price of once XE you could have two 2Ghz Woodcrests.
Since your concern is the high price of the Xeon, I find it ironic that you want to use XE in a Mac, since XE is also VERY expensive. I believe they cost about $1000 a piece.
I believe that the Woodcrests start at around $400, which isn't outrageous price. For the price of once XE you could have two 2Ghz Woodcrests.
ethen
Oct 10, 10:49 AM
I think it is relatively depending on area where you are. In Dallas near my place I have never had drop calls, but in Irving, drop calls is close to 15% of my calls
marksman
Apr 20, 06:00 PM
I don't want to be a systems integrator. I like the Apple iOS ecosystem, and am glad when I want to use different products, it will be easy and seamless for me to migrate.
One of the significant advantages Apple has is that it is a much more considered decision to leave the Apple ecosystyem then it is to leave the Android environment.
One of the significant advantages Apple has is that it is a much more considered decision to leave the Apple ecosystyem then it is to leave the Android environment.
mdntcallr
Sep 25, 11:58 PM
well sounds like i need to chill out and not but the mac pro i was thinking of. perhaps i will wait till they are refreshed with this.
Hopefully the new mac pro's will also have a blu-ray drive option with HDMI HDTV option.
also, with new HDTV TV/Monitor with Speakers integrated Displays.
Hopefully the new mac pro's will also have a blu-ray drive option with HDMI HDTV option.
also, with new HDTV TV/Monitor with Speakers integrated Displays.
No comments:
Post a Comment