I'mAMac
Oct 29, 10:08 AM
I heard somewhere that the Clovertowns are actually slower than the Xeons, but with 2x as many cores will there be much difference?
Nicksd84
Apr 21, 12:44 AM
Android is to Windows, as iOS is to Mac OS.
The similarities are astounding � Google is doing the same thing Microsoft did back in the day.
As much as Apple cares about marketshare, the experience is more important to them then the product itself. That's really something.
To an extent. Apple's breakthrough with the iPhone just can't be beat. The market was established and it sucked. They just blew everyone out and now the parallels are there with MS to Apple, but Apple has a much larger say. Meaning, android is similar to MS with windows, but they don't have the established dominance. I see it now at my current job, we're still using Windows XP... and they just can't change.
However, they are trying the iPad because they know the results and they know Apple's end game isn't stick an iPad everywhere, but make a damn good product. Most businesses have been burned with using one vendor and then getting stuck and long term screwed, but I think there is a trust with Apple. We will see if Apple can maintain high quality and innovation with larger demands.
It skews the number non the less. iOS is on four different devices the iTv, iPod touch, iphone, and the ipod touch jumbo. And google doesn't make any hardware. They work with companies to have them made like the nexus series.
Didn't you just dismiss your own point? Android can be on an "infinite" number of devices, iOS is locked into 4. Also what's an iTV? Yes I am being a fan boy to an extent, but if you're going to argue make it substantive.
Why would making the hardware skew the number for the operating system?
The similarities are astounding � Google is doing the same thing Microsoft did back in the day.
As much as Apple cares about marketshare, the experience is more important to them then the product itself. That's really something.
To an extent. Apple's breakthrough with the iPhone just can't be beat. The market was established and it sucked. They just blew everyone out and now the parallels are there with MS to Apple, but Apple has a much larger say. Meaning, android is similar to MS with windows, but they don't have the established dominance. I see it now at my current job, we're still using Windows XP... and they just can't change.
However, they are trying the iPad because they know the results and they know Apple's end game isn't stick an iPad everywhere, but make a damn good product. Most businesses have been burned with using one vendor and then getting stuck and long term screwed, but I think there is a trust with Apple. We will see if Apple can maintain high quality and innovation with larger demands.
It skews the number non the less. iOS is on four different devices the iTv, iPod touch, iphone, and the ipod touch jumbo. And google doesn't make any hardware. They work with companies to have them made like the nexus series.
Didn't you just dismiss your own point? Android can be on an "infinite" number of devices, iOS is locked into 4. Also what's an iTV? Yes I am being a fan boy to an extent, but if you're going to argue make it substantive.
Why would making the hardware skew the number for the operating system?
pdjudd
Oct 7, 11:24 PM
I'm sorry OSX market share would most definitely go up. From a business perspective though it would would be a terrible move, you are right about that. Profits would drop as Apple would get next to nothing from the sale of software only. The market share of OSX would drop once Apple went bankrupt.
Which is kinda the point. Short term improvements are meaningless if they go right back down. I don;t contend that they would go up, but the whole point of increasing sales is to hope that they stay up. Otherwise it�s just a waste of time. You can;t just say �market share will go up�. Their market share goes up the minute a Mac gets sold. We have to look at the long run which you point out, will invariably go down and possibly lower than the base. A net loss kinda contradicts the idea of increased market share.
But this is all conjecture since Apple has already indicated that they are not playing the market share game.
[QUOTE]Allowing greater access to your product almost always leads to larger sales volumes, but it isn't always in your best interest.
Of course that statement is true. But does that require Apple to license their hardware out to others? I argue that it�s not the case. Taking the MS approach fundamentally changes Apple�s business. They don�t have to do that. Of course the Grueber article covers that too. There are tones of ways to increase access to your product. The tough part is making it profitable. Both Microsoft and Apple accomplish that goal just fine without getting into a fight that results in a bad outcome for Apple or MS.
Which is kinda the point. Short term improvements are meaningless if they go right back down. I don;t contend that they would go up, but the whole point of increasing sales is to hope that they stay up. Otherwise it�s just a waste of time. You can;t just say �market share will go up�. Their market share goes up the minute a Mac gets sold. We have to look at the long run which you point out, will invariably go down and possibly lower than the base. A net loss kinda contradicts the idea of increased market share.
But this is all conjecture since Apple has already indicated that they are not playing the market share game.
[QUOTE]Allowing greater access to your product almost always leads to larger sales volumes, but it isn't always in your best interest.
Of course that statement is true. But does that require Apple to license their hardware out to others? I argue that it�s not the case. Taking the MS approach fundamentally changes Apple�s business. They don�t have to do that. Of course the Grueber article covers that too. There are tones of ways to increase access to your product. The tough part is making it profitable. Both Microsoft and Apple accomplish that goal just fine without getting into a fight that results in a bad outcome for Apple or MS.
likemyorbs
Mar 26, 12:49 PM
Wow. Someone should explain to him all the reasons why that is unconstitutional.
darkplanets
Mar 13, 07:20 PM
First off, I want to thank you guys for actual intelligent input.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
sinsin07
Apr 9, 06:44 AM
I would consider myself a hardcore gamer and I'm not ashamed of it. I went to PAX East the last 2 years and own all 3 home consoles plus a PSP, 3DS, DSi, iPhone and iPad. Gaming kept me away from all the drugs and alcohol that my friends were doing in high school. I'm almost 30 now and I'm married, have a good job, have a beautiful home and a beautiful wife, so lets not get stereotyped.
Dux Solar Electric Boost Split
Connected PV system design
solar power can reduce your
Cogeneration and Power Systems
Lunar Solar Power System
Grid Connected Solar Power
Solar One portable solar power
supplier of solar power,solar
Solar Power System(TM) in
Solar system design
house design solar power
High Power LED Solar Energy
Innovative Power Systems is a
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.
KnightWRX
May 2, 04:17 PM
It auto-executes the installer because installers are marked as safe if "open safe files after downloading" is turned on.
Fine, so I can write an installer that will just wipe your user account while you read my EULA and you'll happily execute it because "hey, it's just an installer" ? :rolleyes:
This is not an example of shellcode being injected into a running application to execute code in user space.
This is not, but I'm interested in the mechanics because next time, it could very well be. That's my point. Some of you guys aren't cut out for computer security...
Fine, so I can write an installer that will just wipe your user account while you read my EULA and you'll happily execute it because "hey, it's just an installer" ? :rolleyes:
This is not an example of shellcode being injected into a running application to execute code in user space.
This is not, but I'm interested in the mechanics because next time, it could very well be. That's my point. Some of you guys aren't cut out for computer security...
Yamcha
May 2, 10:30 AM
Sure it is Malware, but that doesn't mean it's not a threat to Mac users, a decent amount of Mac users are not very knowledgable when it comes to computers, I can see a lot of people going ahead with this install, why? well it says MacDefender, people could confuse it for an anti-virus software, so yeah I mean its entirely possible that someone could install this..
Anyway, it's to be expected, infact when Mac OS does become more popular I think we will clearly find viruses, malware and spyware, that day OSX will become a lot like Windows.. Even anti-viruses today for Windows are not able to get rid of every virus, you have to constantly do updates, even then theres always new viruses, and your not always going to be protected..
But I don't think that'll happen anytime soon..
Anyway, it's to be expected, infact when Mac OS does become more popular I think we will clearly find viruses, malware and spyware, that day OSX will become a lot like Windows.. Even anti-viruses today for Windows are not able to get rid of every virus, you have to constantly do updates, even then theres always new viruses, and your not always going to be protected..
But I don't think that'll happen anytime soon..
nagromme
Mar 18, 12:54 PM
Anyway, I've never been one to agree with the Windows people that argue the security-by-obscurity for why Mac OS X is not hacked to bits like Windows, but it would seem that this adds aome serious fire to their arguement.
Obscurity IS a factor that helps Mac users. The point is that good, secure design is ALSO a factor. But DRM file distribution doesn't relate to OS security/privacy anyway.
Anyway... you still have to BUY the song to use this hack.
Obscurity IS a factor that helps Mac users. The point is that good, secure design is ALSO a factor. But DRM file distribution doesn't relate to OS security/privacy anyway.
Anyway... you still have to BUY the song to use this hack.
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.
CaoCao
Mar 26, 06:59 PM
No- according to you, love conquers all until it includes people you don't like. That's not love, it's control.
Jesus never did that to anyone, did he? Nope. Jesus loved everyone no matter what. You are as far from Jesus as you could be. Jesus was nice to whores, even when they continued to be whores. Could you do that?
Your attitude is what turned me off to religion years ago. Jesus was a seriously great person. His fans, suck- nastiest people I've ever met. You don't even know what Jesus was about. Jesus was about unconditional love. Jesus basically said he loved everyone no matter what. That is a beautiful message. Now, it would be nice if the people he talked to would live it, and stop being such jerks.
Who were the whores who continued to whore?
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
My parents had two children. They (mom & dad) were good Christians (not Catholics, though). They hit a "rough patch". До свидание. Your anecdotes are meaningless BS. Religious devotion + children + love < stability.
Many marriages don't get over the rough patch, some don't even try :(
You will say anything to rationalize your prejudice, won't you? I have trouble believing anyone is as dense as you pretend here.
Just in case, though, the government offers legal concessions to men and women who legally (not religiously) commit to a marriage. It refuses to extend those same concessions to same-sex couples, and can demonstrate no legitimate state interest in this discrimination. That is denial of equal treatment under the law, and is unconstitutional.
I'm inarticulate. Well, if it is extending benefits heterosexual marriages then examine why it is doing so and then see what the differences between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage would be.
So why deny gay families this devotion that is needed, the commitment of marriage? Seems your reasoning is based out of malice if you really believe what you said.
Please explain what I said (I probably badly phrased it).
If you really love someone, surely you don't want to be with anyone else? If so, then it would be pretty moronic not to ultimately work out your issues with the other person.
What the problem is some people can't tell between infatuation and love.
There is no good reason why priests are expected to do it. Peter was married, as were many of the apostles and the priests of the early church. Nor was this confined to the early church:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes
The Renaissance was a very dark time for the Church.
Actually you're not, because it's not an arbitrary rule. As someone explained to you earlier, there's at least one reason behind banning copulating in the street.
There is no valid reason for prohibiting same-sex marriages. That is arbitrary, and shameful - particularly since it seems to be antiquated, bigoted dogma (that not everyone shares) that is promoting this prohibition.
What a touching story. Don't know what any of this has to do with homosexuality.
And if you are being beaten in the street, and the police walk by instead of coming to your aid - is that depriving you of liberty, or merely "not supporting" you?
Again, don't know what that has to do with homosexuality.
To be fair, I knew what you meant with your comment, but frankly there wasn't any sarcasm in my statement. You were attempting to defend your earlier poorly-constructed post, and I was bemused by it.
What does being gay have to do with being a priest?
I didn't say in the street
Examine the benefits of heterosexual marriage, examine why they are given and then compare with homosexual couples
Marriages don't need to be about love, they need to be a permanent commitment.
Situation would never happen, police don't walk the beat here anymore (thought it would be nice). Also police are obligated to stop crimes in action while the government isn't obligated to create new rights because a very small demographic demands it.
You agree with a mangled, meaningless phrase of dog Latin? Mirabile dictu.
I guess I need a better dictionary
A sentence is also a phrase: all sentences are phrases, but not all phrases are sentences. However, frater, my Latin does not include either subcribo (unless of course he was looking up "sign" and found the word for to sign beneath or subscribe(!)), or of, or a as an indefinite article, for that matter. You could try Id est signum contradictionis, which might make slightly more sense, even in the Vatican. Actually, the id is optional. Hence dog Latin, frater.
Apologies for the horrible Latin, the only non-English language I am fluent in is Mandarin Chinese (specifically the Beijing dialect).
Jesus never did that to anyone, did he? Nope. Jesus loved everyone no matter what. You are as far from Jesus as you could be. Jesus was nice to whores, even when they continued to be whores. Could you do that?
Your attitude is what turned me off to religion years ago. Jesus was a seriously great person. His fans, suck- nastiest people I've ever met. You don't even know what Jesus was about. Jesus was about unconditional love. Jesus basically said he loved everyone no matter what. That is a beautiful message. Now, it would be nice if the people he talked to would live it, and stop being such jerks.
Who were the whores who continued to whore?
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
My parents had two children. They (mom & dad) were good Christians (not Catholics, though). They hit a "rough patch". До свидание. Your anecdotes are meaningless BS. Religious devotion + children + love < stability.
Many marriages don't get over the rough patch, some don't even try :(
You will say anything to rationalize your prejudice, won't you? I have trouble believing anyone is as dense as you pretend here.
Just in case, though, the government offers legal concessions to men and women who legally (not religiously) commit to a marriage. It refuses to extend those same concessions to same-sex couples, and can demonstrate no legitimate state interest in this discrimination. That is denial of equal treatment under the law, and is unconstitutional.
I'm inarticulate. Well, if it is extending benefits heterosexual marriages then examine why it is doing so and then see what the differences between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage would be.
So why deny gay families this devotion that is needed, the commitment of marriage? Seems your reasoning is based out of malice if you really believe what you said.
Please explain what I said (I probably badly phrased it).
If you really love someone, surely you don't want to be with anyone else? If so, then it would be pretty moronic not to ultimately work out your issues with the other person.
What the problem is some people can't tell between infatuation and love.
There is no good reason why priests are expected to do it. Peter was married, as were many of the apostles and the priests of the early church. Nor was this confined to the early church:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes
The Renaissance was a very dark time for the Church.
Actually you're not, because it's not an arbitrary rule. As someone explained to you earlier, there's at least one reason behind banning copulating in the street.
There is no valid reason for prohibiting same-sex marriages. That is arbitrary, and shameful - particularly since it seems to be antiquated, bigoted dogma (that not everyone shares) that is promoting this prohibition.
What a touching story. Don't know what any of this has to do with homosexuality.
And if you are being beaten in the street, and the police walk by instead of coming to your aid - is that depriving you of liberty, or merely "not supporting" you?
Again, don't know what that has to do with homosexuality.
To be fair, I knew what you meant with your comment, but frankly there wasn't any sarcasm in my statement. You were attempting to defend your earlier poorly-constructed post, and I was bemused by it.
What does being gay have to do with being a priest?
I didn't say in the street
Examine the benefits of heterosexual marriage, examine why they are given and then compare with homosexual couples
Marriages don't need to be about love, they need to be a permanent commitment.
Situation would never happen, police don't walk the beat here anymore (thought it would be nice). Also police are obligated to stop crimes in action while the government isn't obligated to create new rights because a very small demographic demands it.
You agree with a mangled, meaningless phrase of dog Latin? Mirabile dictu.
I guess I need a better dictionary
A sentence is also a phrase: all sentences are phrases, but not all phrases are sentences. However, frater, my Latin does not include either subcribo (unless of course he was looking up "sign" and found the word for to sign beneath or subscribe(!)), or of, or a as an indefinite article, for that matter. You could try Id est signum contradictionis, which might make slightly more sense, even in the Vatican. Actually, the id is optional. Hence dog Latin, frater.
Apologies for the horrible Latin, the only non-English language I am fluent in is Mandarin Chinese (specifically the Beijing dialect).
KnightWRX
Apr 28, 09:12 AM
Tablets like the iPad, Xoom, G-Slate, heck, even smartphones like the iPhone, Droid, Incredible, etc.. are all lower case "pc"s. As in, they are computers that are personal. They aren't upper case PCs, as in IBM PC compatible.
Servers based on Intel architecture processors like the C7000 chassis blades are not lower case "pc"s, as in, they aren't personal computer systems. They are servers (also why are we talking about servers here ? Is there even any evidence Catalyst is including those in HP's and Dell's numbers ? I doubt they are...). They are however (again, the Intel variant) upper case PCs, as in IBM PC compatible .
PC (Personal Computer) is an architecture defined in the 80s by IBM. pc is a personal computer. Learn the difference boys and girls.
Should the Tablet sales be included in charts like these ? I don't think so, this is just a very pro Apple analyst group trying to make it look like Apple is having more success in a segment they have usually lagged a bit in (though in which they are still showing quite the growth and beating expectations without the iPad).
Servers based on Intel architecture processors like the C7000 chassis blades are not lower case "pc"s, as in, they aren't personal computer systems. They are servers (also why are we talking about servers here ? Is there even any evidence Catalyst is including those in HP's and Dell's numbers ? I doubt they are...). They are however (again, the Intel variant) upper case PCs, as in IBM PC compatible .
PC (Personal Computer) is an architecture defined in the 80s by IBM. pc is a personal computer. Learn the difference boys and girls.
Should the Tablet sales be included in charts like these ? I don't think so, this is just a very pro Apple analyst group trying to make it look like Apple is having more success in a segment they have usually lagged a bit in (though in which they are still showing quite the growth and beating expectations without the iPad).
Mord
Jul 12, 09:01 AM
Name another consumer workstation with a XEON Processor in it. For XEON based machines, the Apple's will be a deal, much like the XServes were the cheapest 1u you could get with the power.
the powermac/mac pro is not a consumer mac they are workstations and are priced and specced accordingly.
the powermac/mac pro is not a consumer mac they are workstations and are priced and specced accordingly.
pkson
Apr 13, 12:05 AM
Anytime FCP is brought up there's a *body part* measuring *stuff*storm about who's "professional" and who's not.
Who gives a cuss?
I think bringing down the price makes it within reach of students and hobbyists which might miff some "pros" but old editing hardware/software is... old. Just because someone has had experience in obsolete tools doesn't ever make the person "better."
The pros should be the ones welcoming a change in old/complex UI. Better UI results in a better workflow, resulting in a better final product. That's the point, isn't it? Isn't that why the unveiling received a standing ovation from a bunch of pros?
Computing has come to a point where most previous sophisticated tasks have become easily accessible. I personally think all these advancements should be embraced and not shunned.
Oh, btw and FCPX looks awesome!
edit:
Editing can start immediately during importing of AVCHD and other media, switches silently to local media as it ingests
Uses every available cpu cycle to keep things rendered. Also highly scalable. Will even work on a Macbook
No interruption for rendering. No transcoding, EVERYTHING native. (incl DSLR footage–assume this means AVC)
These features look like a real time saver and workflow streamliner! I, for one, am probably gonna buy it.
Who gives a cuss?
I think bringing down the price makes it within reach of students and hobbyists which might miff some "pros" but old editing hardware/software is... old. Just because someone has had experience in obsolete tools doesn't ever make the person "better."
The pros should be the ones welcoming a change in old/complex UI. Better UI results in a better workflow, resulting in a better final product. That's the point, isn't it? Isn't that why the unveiling received a standing ovation from a bunch of pros?
Computing has come to a point where most previous sophisticated tasks have become easily accessible. I personally think all these advancements should be embraced and not shunned.
Oh, btw and FCPX looks awesome!
edit:
Editing can start immediately during importing of AVCHD and other media, switches silently to local media as it ingests
Uses every available cpu cycle to keep things rendered. Also highly scalable. Will even work on a Macbook
No interruption for rendering. No transcoding, EVERYTHING native. (incl DSLR footage–assume this means AVC)
These features look like a real time saver and workflow streamliner! I, for one, am probably gonna buy it.
Huntn
Apr 25, 12:45 PM
Comma added, because my brain was starting to hurt. ;)
And I agree, but then 'power' is lost, and that just won't do, now will it? :rolleyes:
No not really especially when power is often held by those placing themselves in the position of interpreting what God thinks and wants...
I do think it was a bad call when God decided that strapping on explosives and blowing up the local market and it's customers was appropriate. ;)
And I agree, but then 'power' is lost, and that just won't do, now will it? :rolleyes:
No not really especially when power is often held by those placing themselves in the position of interpreting what God thinks and wants...
I do think it was a bad call when God decided that strapping on explosives and blowing up the local market and it's customers was appropriate. ;)
arkitect
Mar 12, 04:46 AM
Thanks Olly, I was wondering how hydrogen could explode, not exactly flammable really is it?
Eh?
:eek:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Hindenburg_burning.jpg
Eh?
:eek:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Hindenburg_burning.jpg
QCassidy352
Mar 18, 11:41 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Option 3; STOP trying to cheat the system, and START using your iDevice the way the manufacturer designed it and the way your carrier supports it. (Is it unfair? YES! Are all of us iPhone users getting hosed, even though there's now two carriers? YES)
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Poor thing... he doesn't realize napster and limewire are history. Also, once the data hits my device, it's mine to do with as I please. Thank you very much.
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
No, that's just not true. You signed a contract saying you would only use the data on the phone. You paid for the data with the understanding that it comes with certain contractual restrictions. If you think those restrictions are unfair or arbitrary, you should have signed the contract. In no way shape or form does the contract you signed entitle you to do whatever you want with the data.
It's not a perfect analogy, but compare buying OS 10.6 and installing it on multiple machines with one license. You bought the disc, but that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. The purchase comes with terms regulating the allowed uses.
Option 3; STOP trying to cheat the system, and START using your iDevice the way the manufacturer designed it and the way your carrier supports it. (Is it unfair? YES! Are all of us iPhone users getting hosed, even though there's now two carriers? YES)
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Poor thing... he doesn't realize napster and limewire are history. Also, once the data hits my device, it's mine to do with as I please. Thank you very much.
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
No, that's just not true. You signed a contract saying you would only use the data on the phone. You paid for the data with the understanding that it comes with certain contractual restrictions. If you think those restrictions are unfair or arbitrary, you should have signed the contract. In no way shape or form does the contract you signed entitle you to do whatever you want with the data.
It's not a perfect analogy, but compare buying OS 10.6 and installing it on multiple machines with one license. You bought the disc, but that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. The purchase comes with terms regulating the allowed uses.
D4F
Apr 28, 07:58 AM
It will be. This is just barely scratching the surface.
Then they should include it in such #'s when it WILL be one not while it's not don't you think?
Then they should include it in such #'s when it WILL be one not while it's not don't you think?
Tilpots
Oct 7, 11:52 AM
Now that Android is coming to Verizon (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=798678) and they will be collaborating on handsets, I have no doubt Android will surpass the iPhone in terms of user numbers. Will it surpass in quality? That remains to be seen...
Tulse
Mar 19, 01:09 PM
I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven.
As I recall, the limit is on how many times you can burn a specific playlist. You can burn a song an unlimited number of times. This is a big difference.
manu chao said:If you go to a concert, theatre play, any kind of performance or into any of fee-charging class or course and smuggle yourself in through some kind of backdoor without paying for the ticket or the course, did you steal anything?
This is an excellent analogy, manu chao. Everybody knows that it is wrong to sneak into a movie theatre, but for some reason people think it is OK to copy music illegally. It is just bizarre.
It seems to me that the issue is pretty darned simple -- as a potential user of iTMS you know what the rules are. If you don't want to abide by the rules, don't use the service. Any talk of "it's actually helping Apple" or "it's my music to do with as I want" is just self-justifying bull. If you don't like the rules, don't play. It's really that simple.
As I recall, the limit is on how many times you can burn a specific playlist. You can burn a song an unlimited number of times. This is a big difference.
manu chao said:If you go to a concert, theatre play, any kind of performance or into any of fee-charging class or course and smuggle yourself in through some kind of backdoor without paying for the ticket or the course, did you steal anything?
This is an excellent analogy, manu chao. Everybody knows that it is wrong to sneak into a movie theatre, but for some reason people think it is OK to copy music illegally. It is just bizarre.
It seems to me that the issue is pretty darned simple -- as a potential user of iTMS you know what the rules are. If you don't want to abide by the rules, don't use the service. Any talk of "it's actually helping Apple" or "it's my music to do with as I want" is just self-justifying bull. If you don't like the rules, don't play. It's really that simple.
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.
mhar4
Oct 26, 07:41 AM
No more proof is needed. The stock is up, sales are great, performance is continually climbing...what were they thinking....
My point exactly.
My point exactly.
red0n
Jun 9, 05:12 PM
I have never had a single call dropped. Here in Orlando I get full service and data speeds of about 450Kb p/s!
Haha
Haha
