skunk
Apr 23, 05:25 PM
I'm not cool enough to be an Atheist... :eek:Give it time.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 12, 01:44 PM
BTW, this Japanese plant was built in 1971, which is *older* than the 30+ years you deride the old Soviet plants for being. So there's more of your 'expert because I've got two degrees' opinion lying in more not so expert after all rubble. Speaking of deriding:
:p
I might like to point out that the Chernobyl plant was designed to produced weapons grade plutonium and produce power. That put some major problems on the design and put safety at risk. Control rods would have to be able to removed WHILE the reactor was running and fairly often. Not something you do unless you plane on making weapons grade plutonium. It also had to be much larger in size because it needed to produce power.
Yet another reason why this is not be Chernobyl.
We can also add unlike Soviet Russia Japan would not of cut huge safety corners to save cost at the time and over the past 30 years they sure as hell would of improved the plants safe.
:p
I might like to point out that the Chernobyl plant was designed to produced weapons grade plutonium and produce power. That put some major problems on the design and put safety at risk. Control rods would have to be able to removed WHILE the reactor was running and fairly often. Not something you do unless you plane on making weapons grade plutonium. It also had to be much larger in size because it needed to produce power.
Yet another reason why this is not be Chernobyl.
We can also add unlike Soviet Russia Japan would not of cut huge safety corners to save cost at the time and over the past 30 years they sure as hell would of improved the plants safe.
DavidLeblond
Mar 18, 03:14 PM
Although it's an eye opener to know that itunes itself is what wraps the music with DRM. I'd have thought the music was already DRM'd on the server. But I can see why apple chose that route, so that to get DRM'd songs onto an ipod, you would have to use itunes. I bet they never thought someone would bypass the itunes interface (kind of shortsighted if you ask me, this should have been anticipated).
Actually the reason why it isn't encoded with DRM on the server is that if they did that they would need a copy of every song for every customer they have on the server.
They don't care how you put songs on the iPod anyway... just that you buy an iPod to put the songs on. iTMS is there to sell iPods after all. Therefore if someone breaks the DRM and allows you to put the downloaded songs on ANY MP3 player it most DEFINATELY will not please Apple. The DRM isn't just there to appease the RIAA, it is there to make sure we keep buying iPods.
Actually the reason why it isn't encoded with DRM on the server is that if they did that they would need a copy of every song for every customer they have on the server.
They don't care how you put songs on the iPod anyway... just that you buy an iPod to put the songs on. iTMS is there to sell iPods after all. Therefore if someone breaks the DRM and allows you to put the downloaded songs on ANY MP3 player it most DEFINATELY will not please Apple. The DRM isn't just there to appease the RIAA, it is there to make sure we keep buying iPods.
Gelfin
Mar 25, 01:26 PM
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
MacQuest
Jul 12, 05:55 AM
Haven't read through all the posts, but I've always believed and said [since Intel's unveiling of it's Core line-up roadmap a few months ago, even before re-naming it Core 2] that Woodcrest would be used in Mac Pros.
CONROE WILL BE USED IN A NEW LINE OF CONSUMER TARGETED [gamers and people who like the option of being able to upgrade, even if they probably won't] MAC TOWERS. Go ahead, let the "this is just another headless iMac rumor again" flame-fest start :rolleyes:. IF IT DOESN'T HAVE A SCREEN BUILT IN TO AN ALL IN ONE DESIGN, IT'S NOT AN IMAC DAMNIT!!! :mad:
"Mac [whatever]", or maybe just "Mac", will probably have 1-2 models in the $1000 - $1500 range. If there's 3 models, which I doubt because they'll probably want to keep a $500 price difference between this and the lowest Mac Pro model @ $2000 [assuming Apple keeps the current pricing of the PowerMac line-up], it'll be a $1000 - $1700 range. These might sport the same aluminim alloy enclosure as the Mac Pro, but I'm betting that they'll use a different material, and possibly form-factor all-together to further distinguish this consumer tower line from the Mac Pro line.
I would really like to see a consumer priced, Conroe powered Mac tower [maybe it'll be a mini tower] with the same black finish as the current black MacBook.
That would be cool because then we would have 3 consumer Macs [not including the MacBooks]; 2 in white, the Mac mini [yes, I'm aware that it has a silver trim :rolleyes:] and the iMac, and 1 in black [this new Mac consumer tower]. Maybe they'll offer it in white too... as long as the white doesn't turn yellow as reported with the white MacBooks [which has already been resolved], that would be cool too, but I doubt this option... but maybe. :p
Oh the possibilities!!! :D
EDIT:
Just read the AppleInsider article and saw this:
"The new systems, which will succeed the Power Mac G5 at the forefront of the company's product matrix, will also be available in a single processor configuration for a substantially reduced cost..."
The key part of that statement is "available in a single processor configuration for a substantially reduced cost". I'll bet that THAT will be the consumer priced, Conroe powered tower that I'm talking about, will NOT be Woodcrest powered, and won't be called Mac Pro [possibly Mac Pro mini, but I don't quite think so], as they won't be "Pro" class workstations powered by Intel's server class chips.
Just my 2 cents... ;)
CONROE WILL BE USED IN A NEW LINE OF CONSUMER TARGETED [gamers and people who like the option of being able to upgrade, even if they probably won't] MAC TOWERS. Go ahead, let the "this is just another headless iMac rumor again" flame-fest start :rolleyes:. IF IT DOESN'T HAVE A SCREEN BUILT IN TO AN ALL IN ONE DESIGN, IT'S NOT AN IMAC DAMNIT!!! :mad:
"Mac [whatever]", or maybe just "Mac", will probably have 1-2 models in the $1000 - $1500 range. If there's 3 models, which I doubt because they'll probably want to keep a $500 price difference between this and the lowest Mac Pro model @ $2000 [assuming Apple keeps the current pricing of the PowerMac line-up], it'll be a $1000 - $1700 range. These might sport the same aluminim alloy enclosure as the Mac Pro, but I'm betting that they'll use a different material, and possibly form-factor all-together to further distinguish this consumer tower line from the Mac Pro line.
I would really like to see a consumer priced, Conroe powered Mac tower [maybe it'll be a mini tower] with the same black finish as the current black MacBook.
That would be cool because then we would have 3 consumer Macs [not including the MacBooks]; 2 in white, the Mac mini [yes, I'm aware that it has a silver trim :rolleyes:] and the iMac, and 1 in black [this new Mac consumer tower]. Maybe they'll offer it in white too... as long as the white doesn't turn yellow as reported with the white MacBooks [which has already been resolved], that would be cool too, but I doubt this option... but maybe. :p
Oh the possibilities!!! :D
EDIT:
Just read the AppleInsider article and saw this:
"The new systems, which will succeed the Power Mac G5 at the forefront of the company's product matrix, will also be available in a single processor configuration for a substantially reduced cost..."
The key part of that statement is "available in a single processor configuration for a substantially reduced cost". I'll bet that THAT will be the consumer priced, Conroe powered tower that I'm talking about, will NOT be Woodcrest powered, and won't be called Mac Pro [possibly Mac Pro mini, but I don't quite think so], as they won't be "Pro" class workstations powered by Intel's server class chips.
Just my 2 cents... ;)
theBB
Sep 12, 07:32 PM
$50 gets me all the standard and HD channels on DirecTV. iTunes is still not at that quality/price point yet.
Off topic, but how do you get your broadband internet? DSL? I guess DSL requires me to pay for a landline phone for another $20 per month, as I currently do not have a landline phone. Then, there is the DSL fee itself. Basic cable, broadband + HDTV is $62 per month right now. If I go with DirecTV, I would end up with DirecTV fees + $40 per month for DSL. Overall more expensive than cable.
Off topic, but how do you get your broadband internet? DSL? I guess DSL requires me to pay for a landline phone for another $20 per month, as I currently do not have a landline phone. Then, there is the DSL fee itself. Basic cable, broadband + HDTV is $62 per month right now. If I go with DirecTV, I would end up with DirecTV fees + $40 per month for DSL. Overall more expensive than cable.
Bonte
Sep 22, 07:47 AM
Either way, I am still willing to bet for a large family, cable is significantly cheaper (especially when you take into account all the TV watched for "background noise" (such as the food network)).
Here in Europe we don't have that problem so much but i'm going crazy if i have to watch all the dumb advertising on the US networks, you guys pay much more then just the cable cost. Every 5 minutes there's a commercial brake and the endless repeating of the facts after it. I am willing to pay not to have these annoyances.
Here in Europe we don't have that problem so much but i'm going crazy if i have to watch all the dumb advertising on the US networks, you guys pay much more then just the cable cost. Every 5 minutes there's a commercial brake and the endless repeating of the facts after it. I am willing to pay not to have these annoyances.
CalBoy
Apr 23, 05:45 PM
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
Jumpin JW
Sep 2, 07:53 AM
"He never experienced dropped calls until we started dating and he was talking to me "
My daughter's phone does the same thing!
My daughter's phone does the same thing!
matticus008
Mar 19, 04:59 PM
I'd like to see the RIAA, or in my case BPI, try to revoke the license on the 200 CDs I own simply because I've ripped them to my HDD to load onto my iPod. Removing the DRM to load songs I have purchased onto my phone, media streamer or Panasonic digital music player seems very similar to me, as does buying them without DRM.
Your CD does not have DRM built in that you agreed to when purchasing the CD. Thus burning your CD is not a violation of the DMCA. Furthermore, the iTunes Music Store terms of service don't govern the usage of your CD collection.
Burning or ripping a CD does not bypass copy protection (unless it's one of those ridiculous anti-copy CDs which is a separate argument altogether), does not break encryption, and does not violate any laws as long as you are not redistributing the files. Breaking DRM on a digital file DOES break a law--specifically, that DRM protection cannot be bypassed or broken. Using PyMusique software DOES violate the iTMS terms of service, specifically that the iTMS is ONLY authorized through iTunes itself. Songs from iTunes have DRM and users are bound to the TOS. Those are the terms of the purchase, and doing anything to change that is a violation of international copyright laws.
Your analogy is invalid.
Your CD does not have DRM built in that you agreed to when purchasing the CD. Thus burning your CD is not a violation of the DMCA. Furthermore, the iTunes Music Store terms of service don't govern the usage of your CD collection.
Burning or ripping a CD does not bypass copy protection (unless it's one of those ridiculous anti-copy CDs which is a separate argument altogether), does not break encryption, and does not violate any laws as long as you are not redistributing the files. Breaking DRM on a digital file DOES break a law--specifically, that DRM protection cannot be bypassed or broken. Using PyMusique software DOES violate the iTMS terms of service, specifically that the iTMS is ONLY authorized through iTunes itself. Songs from iTunes have DRM and users are bound to the TOS. Those are the terms of the purchase, and doing anything to change that is a violation of international copyright laws.
Your analogy is invalid.
CANEHDN
May 5, 10:17 AM
How is it possible that AT&T still can't get this stuff together. It's ridiculous. I'm surprised Apple hasn't stepped in the fix this stuff. It's giving the iPhone a bad name.
dante@sisna.com
Oct 26, 03:35 AM
Open and doing something. Safari, Mail, iTunes, and working in photoshop probably won't benefit much from quad cores. Batching in PS, Aperture and doing a render in FCP would.
I am on the brink of buying something. What, time will tell. If the quad core does make a marked difference when running PS and at most one background process I'll consider it. Otherwise its a Dual core 2.66 for me.
I could not disagree with you more. Our G5 and Mac Pro Quads give us an extra production hour, at least, per day, using many of the apps you mentioned above. It is up to the user the know how to push these boxes.
Just today, we processed 8.7 Gig of Photoshop documents (high res art scans from a lambda flatbed of 4x8 foot originals at 300 dpi -- i know the artist was crazy, but it is what we GOT.) -- We open all this data over 20 docs, changed RGB to CMYK, adjusted color, resized to a normal size, sharpened, added masks and saved. We did all this in 40 minutes -- that is 2 minutes per average size doc of 600MB.
Are you really going to tell me that my G5 Dual 2.7 could hang like this.
No Way -- We had activity monitor open -- Photoshop used an average of 72% off ALL FOUR PROCESSORS.
We did use safari at the same time to download a template for the art book (250 MG) and we had a DVD ripping via Mac the Ripper as well.
Quad Core Rules. Soon to be OCTO.
I am on the brink of buying something. What, time will tell. If the quad core does make a marked difference when running PS and at most one background process I'll consider it. Otherwise its a Dual core 2.66 for me.
I could not disagree with you more. Our G5 and Mac Pro Quads give us an extra production hour, at least, per day, using many of the apps you mentioned above. It is up to the user the know how to push these boxes.
Just today, we processed 8.7 Gig of Photoshop documents (high res art scans from a lambda flatbed of 4x8 foot originals at 300 dpi -- i know the artist was crazy, but it is what we GOT.) -- We open all this data over 20 docs, changed RGB to CMYK, adjusted color, resized to a normal size, sharpened, added masks and saved. We did all this in 40 minutes -- that is 2 minutes per average size doc of 600MB.
Are you really going to tell me that my G5 Dual 2.7 could hang like this.
No Way -- We had activity monitor open -- Photoshop used an average of 72% off ALL FOUR PROCESSORS.
We did use safari at the same time to download a template for the art book (250 MG) and we had a DVD ripping via Mac the Ripper as well.
Quad Core Rules. Soon to be OCTO.
Redneck1089
Aug 29, 12:30 PM
Greenpeace can shove it.
Multimedia
Oct 26, 10:35 AM
Hey guys we should hold out for 128 cores. Apple will make it soon. I guess16 cores in 2007
32 cores in 2008
64 cores in 2009
128 cores in 2010
You want to wait 'til 2010 at the soonest? :rolleyes:
32 cores in 2008
64 cores in 2009
128 cores in 2010
You want to wait 'til 2010 at the soonest? :rolleyes:
ariza910
Sep 12, 04:39 PM
Wasnt Steve Jobs demo of the Incredibles movie through iTV in HD?
Since the iTV has HDMI and Component it leads me to belive that it will handle HD as well as SD content.
Since the iTV has HDMI and Component it leads me to belive that it will handle HD as well as SD content.
larrybeo
Mar 18, 09:43 AM
People who complain that your service provider is going to make you follow the ru:eek:les unnerve me with their uncanny ability to disregard all that stands to reason with the sustainability of your "toys." They are like little sissies on the playground crying after a Barbie Doll has been taken from them. Those people should man up and start paying for the footprint they leave on the network.
leekohler
Apr 24, 05:20 AM
Come on, Lee, you just enjoy spending your time surrounded by young, fit redheads guys. :)
As sassy as that sounds- I am quite serious. :)
It really has meant a lot to me to have 21 year old guys who've played hockey all their lives, look at me and say, "Dude, can't wait- you're gonna be amazing after we teach you." Yes, that means a crapload to me, skunk. It really does.
BTW- I have never gotten laid as a result of the hockey league. I know- horrifying. :)
As sassy as that sounds- I am quite serious. :)
It really has meant a lot to me to have 21 year old guys who've played hockey all their lives, look at me and say, "Dude, can't wait- you're gonna be amazing after we teach you." Yes, that means a crapload to me, skunk. It really does.
BTW- I have never gotten laid as a result of the hockey league. I know- horrifying. :)
arkitect
Apr 15, 10:23 AM
You have no business alleging that I hate myself. Got that?? I hope you do.
What the hell makes you think that because I'm gay I have to be 100% supportive of every little part and piece of the lifestyle? I've learned to reconcile with myself and accept the good AND the bad. What's so difficult for you to accept about that?
Why do you have to jump at me -- like 99% of the other gays I know -- just because I had the audacity to speak my mind, and state that there are parts I disagree with? Get real!
OK. Now you are just over reacting.
I pointed out your post in which you wrote that you think it is not a good idea that the media sends out a message that being gay is not a bad thing.
Got that? :confused:
Jeeezus.
What the hell makes you think that because I'm gay I have to be 100% supportive of every little part and piece of the lifestyle? I've learned to reconcile with myself and accept the good AND the bad. What's so difficult for you to accept about that?
Why do you have to jump at me -- like 99% of the other gays I know -- just because I had the audacity to speak my mind, and state that there are parts I disagree with? Get real!
OK. Now you are just over reacting.
I pointed out your post in which you wrote that you think it is not a good idea that the media sends out a message that being gay is not a bad thing.
Got that? :confused:
Jeeezus.
speedriff
Feb 17, 06:51 AM
So what is your job at Apple? The problem with Apple (trust me I love their products) is that they don't care what their customers want concerning wireless products. They seem to only change when they might lose marketshare. If you call that good business then I suggest a history lesson of Japanese business practices. They see a company that is succsessful but isn't giving customers what they want, they fill that demand and walk away (eventually) with all the marketshare. One only has to look at Cars, motorcycles, televisions etc. to see it. I am starting to think Steve Jobs is a douche for more reasons than flash. I am always reading articles about him having a little tantrum and banning this or that because someone made him mad. Grow up Steve and give your LOYAL customers what they want or we will go elsewhere when a viable alternative arrives. Don't fall into the, "The bigger they are the harder they fall" category. As for Flash, it may be a little buggy so let me download it at me own risk. Sorry, but Flash is everywhere and I am tired of not being able to view it. Someday that won't be the case but until then...let me have it. I'm going to spend $800 on an iPad when I can't view Flash content? Really? Sorry, not me. I will just stick with my trusty notebook.:apple:
malohkan
Oct 7, 11:47 AM
I think the realistic expectation is: "If Apple doesn't make any more changes to the iPhone for the next 10 years, there will be an Android phone to beat it by 2020!!"
I feel like the trend is going to stay the same as it was with the G1. They're like "ooo look at our neat new features!!" Unfortunately, the iPhone/iPod just got those features, only better, just before you launched.
The competition just can't stay ahead, and Apple is going to keep it that way.
I feel like the trend is going to stay the same as it was with the G1. They're like "ooo look at our neat new features!!" Unfortunately, the iPhone/iPod just got those features, only better, just before you launched.
The competition just can't stay ahead, and Apple is going to keep it that way.
arn
Oct 7, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by samdweck
sorry arn, but it pisses me off! i mean really, i am very pro-mac and i should chill, but what does a pc person have business doing here... sorry though!
30% of visitors are on a Windows machine.
And if you look above... the people you attacked own Macs. They are simply being realistic.
arn
sorry arn, but it pisses me off! i mean really, i am very pro-mac and i should chill, but what does a pc person have business doing here... sorry though!
30% of visitors are on a Windows machine.
And if you look above... the people you attacked own Macs. They are simply being realistic.
arn
DakotaGuy
Oct 9, 10:00 AM
Alex ant has made some good points on why Macs are a poor buy. They are so much slower and less stable then PC's these days according to everything I read. I still love my Mac, but since reading these message boards over the past year or so I have became more and more negative about Macs. Mac has lost the MHz war and are becoming slower and slower computers and has also lost out to XP for the best operating system, acording to so many people.
I am a consumer user, email, internet, MP3's, MS Word, digital camera photos, etc. I do like the iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie programs for what I do, but it sounds like with XP there is no longer any problems doing these things and they come loaded with programs that are just as easy to use. The sad thing as Apple was working on their switching campaign to switch people to Macs I am now considering switching to my first PC, because they have so much more megahertz and XP sounds so easy to use and stable.
Well I am broke right now so it will be next spring or summer until I buy a new computer, but as Mac has been going backwards on speed and their software is good, but not any better then Microsoft anymore I really should test out a new PC and see how it works for how I use a computer.
I am a consumer user, email, internet, MP3's, MS Word, digital camera photos, etc. I do like the iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie programs for what I do, but it sounds like with XP there is no longer any problems doing these things and they come loaded with programs that are just as easy to use. The sad thing as Apple was working on their switching campaign to switch people to Macs I am now considering switching to my first PC, because they have so much more megahertz and XP sounds so easy to use and stable.
Well I am broke right now so it will be next spring or summer until I buy a new computer, but as Mac has been going backwards on speed and their software is good, but not any better then Microsoft anymore I really should test out a new PC and see how it works for how I use a computer.
greenstork
Sep 12, 07:09 PM
An enthusiast does not want to store DVD's -- they want drive based solutions with drive based backup. This is how all high end stuff is done.
I sure wish Apple would have come up with a system for ripping DVDs to my computer and cataloging them, that I would have loved. How much you want to bet that never happens?
I sure wish Apple would have come up with a system for ripping DVDs to my computer and cataloging them, that I would have loved. How much you want to bet that never happens?
Gelfin
Mar 27, 07:42 PM
I agree: There's a place for that kind of therapy. I even know people who felt conflicted about their sexual orientation. Unfortunately, the conflict caused them some of the severest emotional pain I could imagine.
The goal of any ethical psychological treatment is only to treat the conflict that causes pain. The patient is considered healthy when his thoughts and behaviors do not interfere with his ability to lead a fulfilling life, not when he changes his thoughts and behaviors to ones endorsed by the therapist. Anything else is abuse of the patient and psychological malpractice.
To tell someone who is in conflict over his sexual orientation that he must change it to be well is no different than telling an anorexic to lose more weight so she doesn't feel so fat. It is indulging the conflict to produce conforming behavior rather than treating the conflict to produce a healthy patient.
The goal of any ethical psychological treatment is only to treat the conflict that causes pain. The patient is considered healthy when his thoughts and behaviors do not interfere with his ability to lead a fulfilling life, not when he changes his thoughts and behaviors to ones endorsed by the therapist. Anything else is abuse of the patient and psychological malpractice.
To tell someone who is in conflict over his sexual orientation that he must change it to be well is no different than telling an anorexic to lose more weight so she doesn't feel so fat. It is indulging the conflict to produce conforming behavior rather than treating the conflict to produce a healthy patient.
