toddybody
Apr 15, 10:56 AM
No, they're wrong. Sorry to ruin it for you.:rolleyes:
Ha ha! I love when people rationalize all their views through scientific/observable fact...and then use the same subjectivity and bias (they ridicule) to judge opinions they disagree with. Sorry friend, you can no more prove that scripture invalid than MacVault can prove it valid. :rolleyes:
Ha ha! I love when people rationalize all their views through scientific/observable fact...and then use the same subjectivity and bias (they ridicule) to judge opinions they disagree with. Sorry friend, you can no more prove that scripture invalid than MacVault can prove it valid. :rolleyes:
Multimedia
Oct 26, 01:55 PM
I highly doubt this will be a simple swap.Simple swap has already been tested and confirmed to work in early September by Anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6). The Clovertowns are quite expensive,Not really. The 2.66GHz Clovertown lists @ $1172 vs. $851 for both the 2.33GHz Clovertown and the 3GHz Woodie. Since Apple charges +$800 for a 3GHz Dual Woodie, this means they will likely charge only +$1100 for the 2.66GHz Dual Clovertown - total $3599. Hardly expensive at all. I'd say they are going to be a bargain and LESS EXPENSIVE when you look at the per core price of $450 - or PLUS $275 for each of four more cores.not to mention slower in terms of raw clock speed, so expect it to be a high priced upgrade.2.66GHz is not significantly slower than 3GHz - especially when the workload can be shared among many more.
Clarification: If Apple asks for +$1400 or $3999 they will still sell like hotcakes and be a huge hit. So NO they are not going to be TOO Expensive because there is no such thing as too expensive in this market.
I feel like I am having to explain this market to home user drop-ins who have nothing to do with why we need these 8-core Mac Pros. So they are oblivious to why anyone would even want one much less pay so much for one.
Clarification: If Apple asks for +$1400 or $3999 they will still sell like hotcakes and be a huge hit. So NO they are not going to be TOO Expensive because there is no such thing as too expensive in this market.
I feel like I am having to explain this market to home user drop-ins who have nothing to do with why we need these 8-core Mac Pros. So they are oblivious to why anyone would even want one much less pay so much for one.
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.
aegisdesign
Oct 26, 05:00 AM
That was with the flicker filter on max, and a minor color corection using the color corrector.
Maybe the drives couldn't feed the CPUs fast enough. This is going to be a problem going forward unless Apple gets hardware RAID in there,
Maybe the drives couldn't feed the CPUs fast enough. This is going to be a problem going forward unless Apple gets hardware RAID in there,
mac1984user
Apr 15, 10:20 AM
I think you have slightly misread my post or replied to the wrong post.
I did most certainly not say the media shouldn't project a positive message about being gay.
;)
Ha! It's so true. I meant to copy BOTH quotes in. MY BAD! Editing happening now!
I did most certainly not say the media shouldn't project a positive message about being gay.
;)
Ha! It's so true. I meant to copy BOTH quotes in. MY BAD! Editing happening now!
Silentwave
Sep 25, 11:41 PM
I'd pay for them to try and do a low voltage Clovertown like they did Woodcrest with the 5148LV. That one had a TDP not far off of Merom.
ender land
Apr 23, 04:30 PM
This makeup of this forum's members intrigues mean slightly. Why are most of the posters here Atheists? Is it part of the Mac using demographic, the Internet in general's demographic, or are Atheists just the most interested in Politics, Religon, and Social Issues?
A possible reason is that any time someone puts forth a theistic belief they get mocked, trolled, laughed at, ganged up against in threads, etc. The overall PRSI attitude of "religion is wrong, the only way to go forward or intelligent is to become free of religion" probably does not help any.
I do not bother actively putting forth my theistic beliefs because I have absolutely zero desire to waste my time arguing with people I will not ever meet in person. Not to mention I do not waste time arguing over anything - I wil have a discussion fine, but 99% of online "religion" threads are not discussions but rather a "you are wrong LOL IDIOT" fest. No thanks.
I have personally thought through my beliefs extensively (likely more and more frequently than most of you have thought through your respective beliefs) and have no need for someone else to tell me I have not or am mindlessly following a system I grew up in or am less intelligent. Especially considering I am not mindlessly religious, I did not grow up religious, and according to all standards of the USA I am quite intelligent.
A possible reason is that any time someone puts forth a theistic belief they get mocked, trolled, laughed at, ganged up against in threads, etc. The overall PRSI attitude of "religion is wrong, the only way to go forward or intelligent is to become free of religion" probably does not help any.
I do not bother actively putting forth my theistic beliefs because I have absolutely zero desire to waste my time arguing with people I will not ever meet in person. Not to mention I do not waste time arguing over anything - I wil have a discussion fine, but 99% of online "religion" threads are not discussions but rather a "you are wrong LOL IDIOT" fest. No thanks.
I have personally thought through my beliefs extensively (likely more and more frequently than most of you have thought through your respective beliefs) and have no need for someone else to tell me I have not or am mindlessly following a system I grew up in or am less intelligent. Especially considering I am not mindlessly religious, I did not grow up religious, and according to all standards of the USA I am quite intelligent.
digitalbiker
Mar 18, 09:08 PM
I think this whole issue with Apple, DRM, & the music industry once again makes it perfectly clear that this distribution model is flawed. I have never used the Apple Store because I won't support digital encryption methods that restrict rights for the sole purpose of profit. I buy cd's and rip my music.
The recording industry needs to change or die. We are no longer living in the 1950's. Making perfect copies of recordings and distributing multiple copies of the recording is no longer the significant monetary burden it once was.
The recording industry needs to shift to a new business paradigm. If downloading music is to be the standard for distibution then profit-margins should be reduced to pennies per song. Artists should try to generate income through live-performances, or through managing their own web distribution system, charging a few cents a song.
The recording industry wants to be compensated at ever increasing rates even though technology has significantly reduced the cost of doing business. They can't have their cake, eat-it too, and lose weight.
The recording industry needs to change or die. We are no longer living in the 1950's. Making perfect copies of recordings and distributing multiple copies of the recording is no longer the significant monetary burden it once was.
The recording industry needs to shift to a new business paradigm. If downloading music is to be the standard for distibution then profit-margins should be reduced to pennies per song. Artists should try to generate income through live-performances, or through managing their own web distribution system, charging a few cents a song.
The recording industry wants to be compensated at ever increasing rates even though technology has significantly reduced the cost of doing business. They can't have their cake, eat-it too, and lose weight.
miniConvert
Oct 7, 06:21 PM
Android should easily surpass the iPhone in market share, IMHO. So what?
It's an OS written to run on a multitude of hardware and is/will be heavily customised by both manufacturers and operators. Due to this I doubt it'll ever match the iPhone for quality, while in terms of market share it should clean up.
It's an OS written to run on a multitude of hardware and is/will be heavily customised by both manufacturers and operators. Due to this I doubt it'll ever match the iPhone for quality, while in terms of market share it should clean up.
gopher
Oct 7, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by TheT
But Macs look better than most PCs :D
I don't dispute that.
But Macs look better than most PCs :D
I don't dispute that.
AppleScruff1
Apr 20, 09:00 PM
Why is it that hard to understand? Because every OS has files that users should not and could not touch. OS/X is not an exception to this rule. Showing these files to users in file manager generally makes user life more difficult. What's the point of seeing them if you can not do anything about them? Also, it reduces the chance of doing something stupid with these files accidentally (like removing).
Windows has an option to hide such files. OS/X does not.
So OSX allows user access to all critical files with no option to hide?
Windows has an option to hide such files. OS/X does not.
So OSX allows user access to all critical files with no option to hide?
Huntn
Mar 12, 09:25 AM
And this is why we have passive cooling and shutdown systems, so you don't have to rely on mechanical means for core safety.
Do you have a link for this? I'd like to read about it. I would think a system setup to automatically scram when power is lost would be the ideal.
Guys,
Please stop speculating about the situation of the Japanese nuclear reactors, protocols, and regulations, or how they--those specific ones--work.
I agree speculation may not be helpful but there is the government on one hand reassuring everyone, possibly minimizing the situation and the press which tends to maximize the situation. Speculation is very human and concern is understandable. BTW, my sympathy goes out to Japan. I've spent a lot of time there and it is my favorite Asian country. I hope you recover quickly from this disaster.
Good. Perhaps we can depend on being kept up to date. The media does it's job, but is a loose cannon.
"Making news" that is what they do. I don't condone it.
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment, countries like china however continue to use coal as they main source of energy because they have tons of it and it's cheaper than making the foray into building nuclear plants. Which inevitably results in poor air quality all over the country.
Nuclear power would be wonderful if not for thousands of radioactive barrels that will be dangerous for the next 10k years, tsunamis, earthquakes, and acts of terrorism. Now, if they can actually start find a way to reuse or safely dispose of this waste that might moderate my view somewhat. And there is the "not in my backyard" problem.
Before everyone jumps to conclusions and spreads fear mongering ... as I said this will not be like Chernobyl.
I'd say you are speculating. I'm in the wait and see mode.
Do you have a link for this? I'd like to read about it. I would think a system setup to automatically scram when power is lost would be the ideal.
Guys,
Please stop speculating about the situation of the Japanese nuclear reactors, protocols, and regulations, or how they--those specific ones--work.
I agree speculation may not be helpful but there is the government on one hand reassuring everyone, possibly minimizing the situation and the press which tends to maximize the situation. Speculation is very human and concern is understandable. BTW, my sympathy goes out to Japan. I've spent a lot of time there and it is my favorite Asian country. I hope you recover quickly from this disaster.
Good. Perhaps we can depend on being kept up to date. The media does it's job, but is a loose cannon.
"Making news" that is what they do. I don't condone it.
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment, countries like china however continue to use coal as they main source of energy because they have tons of it and it's cheaper than making the foray into building nuclear plants. Which inevitably results in poor air quality all over the country.
Nuclear power would be wonderful if not for thousands of radioactive barrels that will be dangerous for the next 10k years, tsunamis, earthquakes, and acts of terrorism. Now, if they can actually start find a way to reuse or safely dispose of this waste that might moderate my view somewhat. And there is the "not in my backyard" problem.
Before everyone jumps to conclusions and spreads fear mongering ... as I said this will not be like Chernobyl.
I'd say you are speculating. I'm in the wait and see mode.
lom8104
Sep 12, 04:12 PM
So would "iTV" run OS X or just Front Row? What kind of processor? Old PowerPC's perhaps?
chrono1081
May 2, 08:52 PM
Mac OS X fanboys really need to stop clinging to the mentality that "viruses" don't exist for OS X and that "malware" is a Windows-only problem. Who cares if viruses don't exist for OS X? News flash: viruses aren't all that common on Windows anymore. They just aren't. Phishing, Spear Phishing, trojans, and social engineering are much more cost- and time-effective ways to breach a computer's security.
So no matter what you call "MACDefender," it's a problem. One that's not likely to be caught by a user who has been fed the Koolaid that malware is a Windows problem and that they don't need to be aware.
Can you for once write something truthful? Why are you even here. Windows viruses are more rampant than ever before, trust me I remove them for a living and it eats up a good chunk of my work week.
As for your constant "fanboy" comments I think calling people "fanboys" should get you the ban hammer. No one wants to hear it anymore. They just don't. Oh, and for the "koolaid" cliche? Real original :rolleyes: Haven't heard that a million times.
You obviously know nothing about Windows or Mac if you honestly believe the FUD you constantly put on this forum.
So no matter what you call "MACDefender," it's a problem. One that's not likely to be caught by a user who has been fed the Koolaid that malware is a Windows problem and that they don't need to be aware.
Can you for once write something truthful? Why are you even here. Windows viruses are more rampant than ever before, trust me I remove them for a living and it eats up a good chunk of my work week.
As for your constant "fanboy" comments I think calling people "fanboys" should get you the ban hammer. No one wants to hear it anymore. They just don't. Oh, and for the "koolaid" cliche? Real original :rolleyes: Haven't heard that a million times.
You obviously know nothing about Windows or Mac if you honestly believe the FUD you constantly put on this forum.
radio893fm
Aug 29, 12:29 PM
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
Are you really surprised? The Apple FAN BOYS won't ever see the light. Whatever Apple does is simply RIGHT for them, even if it means killing the world.
Sad...
Are you really surprised? The Apple FAN BOYS won't ever see the light. Whatever Apple does is simply RIGHT for them, even if it means killing the world.
Sad...
mommy
Sep 12, 04:13 PM
I've been coming to MacRumors since maybe but this product has finally inspired me to register. Welcome, iTV - I can't wait til you're part of our living room.
I'm posting with a request too, because there are so many excellent writers on here. Please, someone needs to write a site/blog about getting media ready for the forthcoming iTV. My iTunes and iPhoto libraries are just a mess, and I have stuff on DVD that I don't have a clear idea of how to rip and catalog. If you have a good "system," create a how-to guide, please!
I'm posting with a request too, because there are so many excellent writers on here. Please, someone needs to write a site/blog about getting media ready for the forthcoming iTV. My iTunes and iPhoto libraries are just a mess, and I have stuff on DVD that I don't have a clear idea of how to rip and catalog. If you have a good "system," create a how-to guide, please!
CaoCao
Mar 25, 11:17 PM
Then I think you misunderstand what the word 'mainstream' means. The majority of Catholics do not care about the Vatican's line on birth control, for instance.
The Public Religion Research Institute recently published a report based on a survey of Catholics across the United States. Amongst other findings:
A small minority of Catholics may support your views, but they would hardly be considered mainstream.
The majority of American Catholics, but this is because many are cafeteria Catholics. I imagine if you only count people who go to Mass once or more a month (you're supposed to go every week) the numbers would be significantly different. Also a contributing factor is priests have been too timid to talk about it.
No- you have to prove why I should be denied that right. It clearly exists.
You guys continue to ignore that marriage is in fact, a right. That has already been proven to you. And again, quit comparing us to weapons of mass destruction or murderers. I'm sick of it.
I am not lost. I know exactly where I am. I am also not a sheep. I don't blindly follow any leader or religion.
Prove why I should be denied the right to copulate in public, and think of the children is not an acceptable answer
On the contrary, it is the obligation of the United States government to prove it has a legitimate interest in preventing you from doing something, especially if it is preventing you from doing something it permits to another demographic segment.
I suspect the government could demonstrate this to a court's satisfaction, particularly if it denies that ability to everyone equally. Even "treads are hell on asphalt" is a rational reason.
Both you and NathanMuir really think you're onto something with this red herring, don't you? To ignore a point is not to discredit it.
Tell that to the people who have benefitted from the "love and support" of Christians including Catholics. I know it's the party line, but you know quite well that "love and support" its a smokescreen for forced obedience wearing a phony smile. What religious leaders of all stripes "love" is to be obeyed.
Including for "lost sheep" who are not Catholic by manipulating secular law and convincing their followers it is an abuse of their civil rights if secular law does not follow religious law.
sure, homosexuals can go to a "church" and have a "wedding" ceremony, no one is preventing them.
What treads?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Centauro01.JPEG/300px-Centauro01.JPEG
Why should we have to prove that we have the right to be married? Either we all are allowed or none of us should be allowed. Why are you more important than I am? Why should you be allowed to get married and I can't?
And your lost sheep comment is exactly what is wrong with the Catholic view. We aren't lost and we certainly don't need to change our ways based on archaic principals and hypocrisy.
The Vatican needs to clean it's own house and stay out of mine.
Men are allowed to get married to women and vice versa everyone is equal (regardless of the reason).
I agree.
Speaking as one who was raised Catholic (the vast majority of my extended family are Catholics), I have observed that while Catholics are essentially socially conservative, they are in most cases less conservative than the Pope would have you believe, as your linked study indicates. Most Catholics support artificial contraception, many support same-sex marriage and abortion. As a group they are definitely less conservative than fundamentalist/born-again Christian sects, though they certainly have their hard-line elements, especially in developing countries.
The Church is becoming increasingly conservative. In the US people are working to destroy the spirit of Vatican II and teach what Vatican II actually is.
If that's what you mean by mainstream catholic, then i think i can safely say that less than 1% of the world in mainstream catholic. I honestly don't know one single catholic that follows all the rules of the catholic church. Really, not one. And i know lots of catholics.
And what do you mean by change their behavior? You mean make them straight? Not gonna happen, and the church will never win this one.
I know plenty of Catholics who are loyal to the Magisterium and I don't even attend Tridentine Masses. Yes people slip, but we help them up.
The Catholic Church recognizes that people don't choose to be homosexual, however it does recognize that acting on those urges is entirely their choice. Chastity is what they are called to.
The Public Religion Research Institute recently published a report based on a survey of Catholics across the United States. Amongst other findings:
A small minority of Catholics may support your views, but they would hardly be considered mainstream.
The majority of American Catholics, but this is because many are cafeteria Catholics. I imagine if you only count people who go to Mass once or more a month (you're supposed to go every week) the numbers would be significantly different. Also a contributing factor is priests have been too timid to talk about it.
No- you have to prove why I should be denied that right. It clearly exists.
You guys continue to ignore that marriage is in fact, a right. That has already been proven to you. And again, quit comparing us to weapons of mass destruction or murderers. I'm sick of it.
I am not lost. I know exactly where I am. I am also not a sheep. I don't blindly follow any leader or religion.
Prove why I should be denied the right to copulate in public, and think of the children is not an acceptable answer
On the contrary, it is the obligation of the United States government to prove it has a legitimate interest in preventing you from doing something, especially if it is preventing you from doing something it permits to another demographic segment.
I suspect the government could demonstrate this to a court's satisfaction, particularly if it denies that ability to everyone equally. Even "treads are hell on asphalt" is a rational reason.
Both you and NathanMuir really think you're onto something with this red herring, don't you? To ignore a point is not to discredit it.
Tell that to the people who have benefitted from the "love and support" of Christians including Catholics. I know it's the party line, but you know quite well that "love and support" its a smokescreen for forced obedience wearing a phony smile. What religious leaders of all stripes "love" is to be obeyed.
Including for "lost sheep" who are not Catholic by manipulating secular law and convincing their followers it is an abuse of their civil rights if secular law does not follow religious law.
sure, homosexuals can go to a "church" and have a "wedding" ceremony, no one is preventing them.
What treads?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Centauro01.JPEG/300px-Centauro01.JPEG
Why should we have to prove that we have the right to be married? Either we all are allowed or none of us should be allowed. Why are you more important than I am? Why should you be allowed to get married and I can't?
And your lost sheep comment is exactly what is wrong with the Catholic view. We aren't lost and we certainly don't need to change our ways based on archaic principals and hypocrisy.
The Vatican needs to clean it's own house and stay out of mine.
Men are allowed to get married to women and vice versa everyone is equal (regardless of the reason).
I agree.
Speaking as one who was raised Catholic (the vast majority of my extended family are Catholics), I have observed that while Catholics are essentially socially conservative, they are in most cases less conservative than the Pope would have you believe, as your linked study indicates. Most Catholics support artificial contraception, many support same-sex marriage and abortion. As a group they are definitely less conservative than fundamentalist/born-again Christian sects, though they certainly have their hard-line elements, especially in developing countries.
The Church is becoming increasingly conservative. In the US people are working to destroy the spirit of Vatican II and teach what Vatican II actually is.
If that's what you mean by mainstream catholic, then i think i can safely say that less than 1% of the world in mainstream catholic. I honestly don't know one single catholic that follows all the rules of the catholic church. Really, not one. And i know lots of catholics.
And what do you mean by change their behavior? You mean make them straight? Not gonna happen, and the church will never win this one.
I know plenty of Catholics who are loyal to the Magisterium and I don't even attend Tridentine Masses. Yes people slip, but we help them up.
The Catholic Church recognizes that people don't choose to be homosexual, however it does recognize that acting on those urges is entirely their choice. Chastity is what they are called to.
fat phil
Apr 13, 08:36 AM
There's some very exciting stuff in there - I can't wait to get my hands on it.
But as someone gestured at earlier, what's new isn't the only thing of importance, but what's the same/familiar - shortcuts for instance is a good one.
There does seem to be a lot of confusion over Motion and Color. They're seperate applications in their own right, and it would be overkill to try and embed them into a single FCP editor (certainly in the case of Motion, which benefits from being seperate). I can't imagine them being removed and I suspect that the nice $299 price is because that's the price of the editor on it's own, and the Studio will follow, and a more accustomed pricetag.
But as someone gestured at earlier, what's new isn't the only thing of importance, but what's the same/familiar - shortcuts for instance is a good one.
There does seem to be a lot of confusion over Motion and Color. They're seperate applications in their own right, and it would be overkill to try and embed them into a single FCP editor (certainly in the case of Motion, which benefits from being seperate). I can't imagine them being removed and I suspect that the nice $299 price is because that's the price of the editor on it's own, and the Studio will follow, and a more accustomed pricetag.
needthephone
Oct 8, 07:00 AM
No, sorry.
In three years time my new phone os will be number 1.
And Zunes will be the number 1 MP3 player
England will win the World Cup
Cars will run on water and out of the exhaust will pour a stream of pure molten gold. Fluffy white bunny rabbits will follow the cars collect the gold and post the driver back ingots to store in their garages.
Everyone will be paid a minimum wage of a million of pound.
Finally they will admit that Swine Flu was the biggest over reaction ever made by the WHO and the world's governments.
Wars will end and man will live in harmony for ever more
The end, and we all lived happily ever after.
oh yes the iphone is still the number one smart phone....
In three years time my new phone os will be number 1.
And Zunes will be the number 1 MP3 player
England will win the World Cup
Cars will run on water and out of the exhaust will pour a stream of pure molten gold. Fluffy white bunny rabbits will follow the cars collect the gold and post the driver back ingots to store in their garages.
Everyone will be paid a minimum wage of a million of pound.
Finally they will admit that Swine Flu was the biggest over reaction ever made by the WHO and the world's governments.
Wars will end and man will live in harmony for ever more
The end, and we all lived happily ever after.
oh yes the iphone is still the number one smart phone....
Huntn
Mar 15, 08:20 PM
Once again my mind has been boggled on the Rachel Maddow show. Tonight she is talking about the problems at shutdown Japanese reactors, reactors that I think were shutdown before the earthquake, not problems with the reactors themselves, but problems with the HUGE POOLS of spent fuel rods, with accumulations of fuel rods in far larger amounts than what is found in an individual reactor. According to her, they need to be cooled for up to ten years before they can be put into dry storage. Having lost their cooling water they could be more dangerous than a reactor cause of the quantity of rods and they are heating up and causing explosions potentially releasing radioactive particles into the environment.
Based on what I said in post #193. Nuclear Reactors can never be truly shutdown. *Without* a continuous flow of cooling water they become dangerous and self destructive very quickly. See this link: The Bane of Nuclear Power- Waste Storage (http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/nuclear_waste_storage/nuclear_waste_storage.html).
Based on what I said in post #193. Nuclear Reactors can never be truly shutdown. *Without* a continuous flow of cooling water they become dangerous and self destructive very quickly. See this link: The Bane of Nuclear Power- Waste Storage (http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/nuclear_waste_storage/nuclear_waste_storage.html).
AhmedFaisal
Mar 15, 10:58 PM
I see you still haven't explained what you meant by "contained".
I did.
I did.
ender land
Apr 23, 10:31 PM
Frankly, it doesn't take much faith to claim that nothing and no-one stands above nature (i.e. being supernatural).
...
Do you realize the sheer magnitude of this statement?
If even 0.0000001% of an incredibly lowball estimate as to the number of current Christians in the world (not to mention past Christians or other theistic religions) have legitimately experienced a supernatural event - pick one, doesn't matter which or how large or small it is - this is an incorrect statement.
Even if 99.9999% of a billion people claiming supernatural events such as religion are lying, that is still a thousand experiences which invalidate your premise.
Everything we can see is derived from nature.
Spoken like a true empiricist.
Where would God come from then?
I have never understood why this is used as an argument against a god(s). Clearly, something exists now (as an aside, if you disagree with this statement there is absolutely no grounds to say religion is not true either, so I'm going to assume you do agree something does in fact exist, namely the universe). No matter how you believe, either atheism, creationism, flying spagetti monsterism, anything, at some point, there will be the problem that something always existed. Or existed "before." Whether it's God or a singularity point or whatever, all rational beliefs agree upon this point.
Asking how God existed prior to the known universe is meaningless in terms of invalidating any religion.
If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Simple example: I make some robots. I put them into a world (let's say I put them in a room with no visible or perceptible interior doors/windows/etc). They interact and are reasonably self aware. Their entire world is this room. Gravity is "obvious" to them. Suddenly, I rotate the entire room 90 degrees. They would have a situation where the statement "no spiritual entity.. stand[s] above these laws."
Clearly this does not necessarily prove god(s). But it does mean your belief as stated above is illogical (unless starting from the assumed premise that no god(s) exist, in which case your faith rests upon this belief).
...
Do you realize the sheer magnitude of this statement?
If even 0.0000001% of an incredibly lowball estimate as to the number of current Christians in the world (not to mention past Christians or other theistic religions) have legitimately experienced a supernatural event - pick one, doesn't matter which or how large or small it is - this is an incorrect statement.
Even if 99.9999% of a billion people claiming supernatural events such as religion are lying, that is still a thousand experiences which invalidate your premise.
Everything we can see is derived from nature.
Spoken like a true empiricist.
Where would God come from then?
I have never understood why this is used as an argument against a god(s). Clearly, something exists now (as an aside, if you disagree with this statement there is absolutely no grounds to say religion is not true either, so I'm going to assume you do agree something does in fact exist, namely the universe). No matter how you believe, either atheism, creationism, flying spagetti monsterism, anything, at some point, there will be the problem that something always existed. Or existed "before." Whether it's God or a singularity point or whatever, all rational beliefs agree upon this point.
Asking how God existed prior to the known universe is meaningless in terms of invalidating any religion.
If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Simple example: I make some robots. I put them into a world (let's say I put them in a room with no visible or perceptible interior doors/windows/etc). They interact and are reasonably self aware. Their entire world is this room. Gravity is "obvious" to them. Suddenly, I rotate the entire room 90 degrees. They would have a situation where the statement "no spiritual entity.. stand[s] above these laws."
Clearly this does not necessarily prove god(s). But it does mean your belief as stated above is illogical (unless starting from the assumed premise that no god(s) exist, in which case your faith rests upon this belief).
Mr-Stabby
Apr 12, 10:28 PM
Does anyone know if the new FC will take AVCHD files natively as Premiere CS5 does?
From what i gathered, if it doesn't, at the very least it transcodes them in the background as you've imported them, so you can work on them straight away.
But it might actually work natively. It was strongly suggested a lot more files could be imported natively, DSLR was mentioned.
From what i gathered, if it doesn't, at the very least it transcodes them in the background as you've imported them, so you can work on them straight away.
But it might actually work natively. It was strongly suggested a lot more files could be imported natively, DSLR was mentioned.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 27, 01:49 PM
The real point is that the "Judaeo-Christian God" is not Judaeo-Christian at all, but the chief god of the Ugaritic pantheon, and no more "real" than Zeus, Jupiter, Horus or Astarte.
No, please stop spamming this everywhere. The Judaeo-Christian God has certain attributes which I listed. Does this Ugaritic God share the same attributes, ie omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence?
No, please stop spamming this everywhere. The Judaeo-Christian God has certain attributes which I listed. Does this Ugaritic God share the same attributes, ie omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence?
No comments:
Post a Comment