Edge100
Apr 15, 10:06 AM
Because it isn't cool to support fat kids that are being bullied, just if you live an alternative lifestyle. That's the American way, pick out a tiny sect of society and lift it up on a mantle to bitch about while ignoring the bigger issue.
Or, perhaps it's that "fat kids" have not been discriminated against, been denied basic human rights, and been subjected to the worst types of inhuman hatred and violence, simply for being who they are.
That's not to say that bullying isn't an issue, per se. It is; full stop.
But to equate the bullying that "fat kids" experience (which, again, is real) to the utter fear for ones life that goes through the minds of every LGBT kid is to miss the point entirely.
Some groups actually do deserve to be treated differently than others.
Or, perhaps it's that "fat kids" have not been discriminated against, been denied basic human rights, and been subjected to the worst types of inhuman hatred and violence, simply for being who they are.
That's not to say that bullying isn't an issue, per se. It is; full stop.
But to equate the bullying that "fat kids" experience (which, again, is real) to the utter fear for ones life that goes through the minds of every LGBT kid is to miss the point entirely.
Some groups actually do deserve to be treated differently than others.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 08:41 PM
In science when there is a dearth of evidence for something, you fail to reject the null hypothesis (which is that hypothesis x is incorrect).
If I wanted to make a claim about something, say that two bricks tied together will fall at the same rate as a single brick, I first have to make this my working hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that what I'm asserting is not true (in this case the null is that the bricks will fall at different rates). It's up to me to provide the evidence. If there isn't enough (or any) evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
When it comes to religion, it is the theologian who is making the claim. Thus, his working hypothesis is, "God exists." In searching for evidence, however, we come up with nothing. Thus we must fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is, "God does not exist."
Agnosticism is really the position that the an affirmative statement on the matter of deities is impossible to know. It doesn't have a rational basis in logic or science, thought it might make some people more comfortable with their skepticism.
Atheism is the position that, based on currently available evidence, there is no basis to consider any deity to be real. This could change as new evidence comes to light, of course. That is a quality you will not find in theism or agnosticism.
As I said in my first post, most atheists that I speak to don't put this much thought and care into their atheism. They just take it for granted that it won't be challenged.
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
If I wanted to make a claim about something, say that two bricks tied together will fall at the same rate as a single brick, I first have to make this my working hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that what I'm asserting is not true (in this case the null is that the bricks will fall at different rates). It's up to me to provide the evidence. If there isn't enough (or any) evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
When it comes to religion, it is the theologian who is making the claim. Thus, his working hypothesis is, "God exists." In searching for evidence, however, we come up with nothing. Thus we must fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is, "God does not exist."
Agnosticism is really the position that the an affirmative statement on the matter of deities is impossible to know. It doesn't have a rational basis in logic or science, thought it might make some people more comfortable with their skepticism.
Atheism is the position that, based on currently available evidence, there is no basis to consider any deity to be real. This could change as new evidence comes to light, of course. That is a quality you will not find in theism or agnosticism.
As I said in my first post, most atheists that I speak to don't put this much thought and care into their atheism. They just take it for granted that it won't be challenged.
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
macidiot
Jul 12, 04:03 AM
I hate to say it but since I got my macbook black I have been using winxp and not osx. XP runs faster, is compatible with all apps like photoshop and office natively and runs perfectly. I have been very impressed. So impressed that I decided to build a core 2 duo desktop from newegg and I did it for Under $900. Now lets see apple top that pricing. (core 2 duo chip on order from buy.com)
Sorry but I think I have lost hope for OS X. I got the media center edition OS with the new computer I am building with dual tuner TV card. Watching tv via my xbox 360 is a dream. Mac will never be able to accomplish this task. Front row sucks.
If I bought a new mac pro (which I won't because its going to be a rippoff) I would just run XP on it.
For instance, I got two Radeon 16xPCIe X1600xt supporting crossfire with 512mb ram each from newegg for $120 each. Everything is just cheaper.
After a while you get to a point in your work where you realize seeing the neat apple OS is just not that important. Not when you can run crappy XP (which sorry to disappoint never crashes) for 1/3rd the price and 4x the speed.
Comon apple, make a media center mac and figure out a way to use PC graphics cards. After spending $500 on my Radeon 800xt with 256mb ram I wil l NEVER do it again. Not when I can get dual crossfire cards for half the price and 4x the performance.
I guess I am a half reverse switcher. Using macbook pro but XP only. LOL!
Considering I mostly watch hdtv from satellite, neither platform is of any use. And who cares, I have a hdtivo that works like a champ. Let me know when mce can record Deadwood in HD. And let me know how I can hook up an xbox 360 to my hdtv via dvi/hdmi.
And whuteva about building your own comp for a penny. You get a gold star. Apple is going to cost more. So is HP, Dell, Sony, and any other tier 1 manufacturer. Then again, a computer from Apple isn't going to come in a $20 plastic chrome-plated case that looks like a transformer.
Everything is just cheaper? Tell me, in what what intel macs can you toss those x1600xt cards into? Or is pc ram somehow cheaper? Oh wait, must be those pc-only hard drives right? And I'm wondering what core duo laptops you can buy that are 4x faster than a macbook pro and only cost $900. Cause I'll sign up right now and buy one. Hell, I'll buy 2. One for me and one for you. It only has to cost 1/3 the price of a macbook pro and offer 4x the speed, and otherwise be similar (weight, display, main features).
And your running xp on your mac? Is it xp or mce? And your using a pirated copy? Cause if you actually purchased a copy, it sort of explains why you think your comp is expensive... since you spent an extra 100-150 on it...
And finally... you have a black macbook pro? I'm impressed. :P So did you use Krylon?
I believe I just fed the troll... I'm guessing that since you don't seem to know what kind of laptop you have. And considering that most of what you said is not based in fact. It's something a 12yo pc fanboy would say.
Sorry but I think I have lost hope for OS X. I got the media center edition OS with the new computer I am building with dual tuner TV card. Watching tv via my xbox 360 is a dream. Mac will never be able to accomplish this task. Front row sucks.
If I bought a new mac pro (which I won't because its going to be a rippoff) I would just run XP on it.
For instance, I got two Radeon 16xPCIe X1600xt supporting crossfire with 512mb ram each from newegg for $120 each. Everything is just cheaper.
After a while you get to a point in your work where you realize seeing the neat apple OS is just not that important. Not when you can run crappy XP (which sorry to disappoint never crashes) for 1/3rd the price and 4x the speed.
Comon apple, make a media center mac and figure out a way to use PC graphics cards. After spending $500 on my Radeon 800xt with 256mb ram I wil l NEVER do it again. Not when I can get dual crossfire cards for half the price and 4x the performance.
I guess I am a half reverse switcher. Using macbook pro but XP only. LOL!
Considering I mostly watch hdtv from satellite, neither platform is of any use. And who cares, I have a hdtivo that works like a champ. Let me know when mce can record Deadwood in HD. And let me know how I can hook up an xbox 360 to my hdtv via dvi/hdmi.
And whuteva about building your own comp for a penny. You get a gold star. Apple is going to cost more. So is HP, Dell, Sony, and any other tier 1 manufacturer. Then again, a computer from Apple isn't going to come in a $20 plastic chrome-plated case that looks like a transformer.
Everything is just cheaper? Tell me, in what what intel macs can you toss those x1600xt cards into? Or is pc ram somehow cheaper? Oh wait, must be those pc-only hard drives right? And I'm wondering what core duo laptops you can buy that are 4x faster than a macbook pro and only cost $900. Cause I'll sign up right now and buy one. Hell, I'll buy 2. One for me and one for you. It only has to cost 1/3 the price of a macbook pro and offer 4x the speed, and otherwise be similar (weight, display, main features).
And your running xp on your mac? Is it xp or mce? And your using a pirated copy? Cause if you actually purchased a copy, it sort of explains why you think your comp is expensive... since you spent an extra 100-150 on it...
And finally... you have a black macbook pro? I'm impressed. :P So did you use Krylon?
I believe I just fed the troll... I'm guessing that since you don't seem to know what kind of laptop you have. And considering that most of what you said is not based in fact. It's something a 12yo pc fanboy would say.
maclaptop
Apr 28, 07:47 AM
However the iPad is not a pc, so this report is a bit on the Apple side here.
Very true. Plus it could be a fad to own the latest toy. We won't know until some time passes. Anything new from Apple gets a lot of attention.
Wait til the newness wears off.
Very true. Plus it could be a fad to own the latest toy. We won't know until some time passes. Anything new from Apple gets a lot of attention.
Wait til the newness wears off.
Sydde
Apr 25, 12:51 AM
At another website, other posters kept arguing that there were different kinds of theism and that agnosticism. My philosophy professors taught me that that atheism is the belief that there's no God, and that an agnostic would say, "I don't know whether there's a God. "
You can say that, although you don't believe that God exists, you're neither an atheist nor an agnostic. You can do that because you can suspend judgment judgment about theism.
Well, I am not 100% sure about the non-existence of any given deity, but when it comes to the cobbled-together fairy tale that Christians subscribe to, my certainty-of-BS level goes through the roof. (Jews and Muslims can readily be included as well.)
You can say that, although you don't believe that God exists, you're neither an atheist nor an agnostic. You can do that because you can suspend judgment judgment about theism.
Well, I am not 100% sure about the non-existence of any given deity, but when it comes to the cobbled-together fairy tale that Christians subscribe to, my certainty-of-BS level goes through the roof. (Jews and Muslims can readily be included as well.)
Anuba
Jun 7, 07:35 AM
My husband has been an AT&T user for over a decade. He never experienced dropped calls until we started dating and he was talking to me (I'm on an iPhone, he is not).
Right, and during that decade there were no iPhones overloading the networks. Barely anyone used the data traffic capacity back then. With the iPhone, usage of the onboard internet browser on smartphones went up from 15% to 85%. Steve has unleashed hell and now he's poured gasoline on the whole thing by introducing the 3G iPad.
What you have now is a situation with millions of people overloading the network by utilizing their wireless devices in ways the networks won't be able to handle for at least another 5 years, and it's only going to get worse. Netbooks, iPhones, iPads, Androids... sorry, guess we'll have to discontinue voice traffic services, please go back to your land phone.
"Explosion of wireless devices causing data traffic jam" (http://www.physorg.com/news185457426.html)
It's not only a capacity problem, it's also a spectrum problem. AT&T could put up a dozen cell towers in a ring around your house, it ain't gonna do much about the dropped calls. The data traffic jamming is the reason for dropped calls. Voice and data are different services but it's the same network infrastructure equipment handling both services. This equipment uses dozens of different technologies to maximize capacity. Adaptive Multi Rate codecs, Cell Load Sharing, Dynamic Half-Rate Allocation, Frequency Hopping, Intra Cell Handover, DTX Discontinuous Transmission, Fractional Load Planning, Multiple Re-use Pattern... all these technologies are band-aids that milk more capacity out of the network. Each time one of these technologies kicks in during a call, there's a slight risk of the call being dropped, and this risk increases ten fold if the infrastructure is so busy with data traffic it really doesn't have the resources to manage voice traffic properly. As long as the carriers don't get more spectrum, they're stuck in this situation.
"Currently, wireless companies have 534 megahertz of spectrum allotted to them, with an additional 50 megahertz in the pipeline. The industry says it needs at least 800 megahertz more within six years to accommodate demand.
"Spectrum for us is our highway," said Christopher Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs for CTIA-The Wireless Association, a trade group. "But the volume of traffic is picking up. Without more lanes, we'll have more traffic and more congestion," which will result in slower service."
So who are the real culprits in this mess? Well, 1) naive carriers who introduced services the networks weren't built for (they have the technology but not the capacity for this massive volume), and 2) these customers:
"Limited spectrum is only part of the problem, experts say, though an important part. Often, slow cell service is caused by a handful of bandwidth hogs -- watching videos on their iPhones, for example -- in a small area between cell phone towers.
"You have a few users clogging up capacity -- that is not something which can be solved just by providing more spectrum," said Aditya Kaul, director of mobile networks for ABI Research, a technology research firm."
Wanna get rid of dropped calls before 2015? Find the bandwidth hogs in your neighborhood and tell them if they don't stop using 3G like it was regular broadband, you will shoot them. Tell them it's because of them that everyone else who had an unlimited plan will soon have a capped plan, and if they don't stop, everyone will soon be on a plan where they pay by the megabyte.
Right, and during that decade there were no iPhones overloading the networks. Barely anyone used the data traffic capacity back then. With the iPhone, usage of the onboard internet browser on smartphones went up from 15% to 85%. Steve has unleashed hell and now he's poured gasoline on the whole thing by introducing the 3G iPad.
What you have now is a situation with millions of people overloading the network by utilizing their wireless devices in ways the networks won't be able to handle for at least another 5 years, and it's only going to get worse. Netbooks, iPhones, iPads, Androids... sorry, guess we'll have to discontinue voice traffic services, please go back to your land phone.
"Explosion of wireless devices causing data traffic jam" (http://www.physorg.com/news185457426.html)
It's not only a capacity problem, it's also a spectrum problem. AT&T could put up a dozen cell towers in a ring around your house, it ain't gonna do much about the dropped calls. The data traffic jamming is the reason for dropped calls. Voice and data are different services but it's the same network infrastructure equipment handling both services. This equipment uses dozens of different technologies to maximize capacity. Adaptive Multi Rate codecs, Cell Load Sharing, Dynamic Half-Rate Allocation, Frequency Hopping, Intra Cell Handover, DTX Discontinuous Transmission, Fractional Load Planning, Multiple Re-use Pattern... all these technologies are band-aids that milk more capacity out of the network. Each time one of these technologies kicks in during a call, there's a slight risk of the call being dropped, and this risk increases ten fold if the infrastructure is so busy with data traffic it really doesn't have the resources to manage voice traffic properly. As long as the carriers don't get more spectrum, they're stuck in this situation.
"Currently, wireless companies have 534 megahertz of spectrum allotted to them, with an additional 50 megahertz in the pipeline. The industry says it needs at least 800 megahertz more within six years to accommodate demand.
"Spectrum for us is our highway," said Christopher Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs for CTIA-The Wireless Association, a trade group. "But the volume of traffic is picking up. Without more lanes, we'll have more traffic and more congestion," which will result in slower service."
So who are the real culprits in this mess? Well, 1) naive carriers who introduced services the networks weren't built for (they have the technology but not the capacity for this massive volume), and 2) these customers:
"Limited spectrum is only part of the problem, experts say, though an important part. Often, slow cell service is caused by a handful of bandwidth hogs -- watching videos on their iPhones, for example -- in a small area between cell phone towers.
"You have a few users clogging up capacity -- that is not something which can be solved just by providing more spectrum," said Aditya Kaul, director of mobile networks for ABI Research, a technology research firm."
Wanna get rid of dropped calls before 2015? Find the bandwidth hogs in your neighborhood and tell them if they don't stop using 3G like it was regular broadband, you will shoot them. Tell them it's because of them that everyone else who had an unlimited plan will soon have a capped plan, and if they don't stop, everyone will soon be on a plan where they pay by the megabyte.
jchung
Mar 18, 11:25 AM
Two separate issues.
ATT can prove if you're tethering or not. This has nothing to do with how much data you are or are not using.
Even if you use 1KB via tether and you aren't on their plan - they have a leg to stand on.
Hardly, if people are complaining about theft from AT&T, by the customer, then the very same people should be complaining about theft from the customer by AT&T. That is what this incorrect data usage accounting amounts too. AT&T charging people for data usage that they did not use and that AT&T can not prove they used (based on the experience of customers calling AT&T and their usage of the AT&T management website).
The validity of an accusation, by a thief, that someone else is a thief is questionable.
ATT can prove if you're tethering or not. This has nothing to do with how much data you are or are not using.
Even if you use 1KB via tether and you aren't on their plan - they have a leg to stand on.
Hardly, if people are complaining about theft from AT&T, by the customer, then the very same people should be complaining about theft from the customer by AT&T. That is what this incorrect data usage accounting amounts too. AT&T charging people for data usage that they did not use and that AT&T can not prove they used (based on the experience of customers calling AT&T and their usage of the AT&T management website).
The validity of an accusation, by a thief, that someone else is a thief is questionable.
AlBDamned
Aug 29, 03:01 PM
Don't get me wrong, it's good that companies are giving time scales, but they don't really mean jack until they're implemented (the UK committed to the Kyoto protocol and will miss it's commitments by miles)
That's not true. The UK will miss the targets that Tony Blair committed [us] to. Blair's standards were almost double the standard Kyoto targets. We'll miss the Blair targets (surprise surprise) but we should hit the Kyoto targets. See here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4849672.stm).
Of course, much of Kyoto is rendered moot because the US refuses to ratify the treaty because "it will harm the economy." :rolleyes:
That's not true. The UK will miss the targets that Tony Blair committed [us] to. Blair's standards were almost double the standard Kyoto targets. We'll miss the Blair targets (surprise surprise) but we should hit the Kyoto targets. See here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4849672.stm).
Of course, much of Kyoto is rendered moot because the US refuses to ratify the treaty because "it will harm the economy." :rolleyes:
citizenzen
Apr 23, 11:07 PM
Perhaps you should define atheism for me.
I was under the impression it was the belief no god(s) existed. Which would then lead to someone with atheistic beliefs affirming the veracity of the statement "there are no god(s)."
As I said a few posts back, I have rarely (never) encountered somebody who makes that claim.
At that other forum (that I left because the level of discussion was so poor) there were a number of posts where people linked to examples of what they called "fundamentalist atheists".
Yet, in every case, those atheists went out of their way to state that they don't know ultimately whether a God or Gods exist, only that there is no proof of their existence. If you can find an atheist who claims "There is no such thing as God," I'll say you found an idiot who likes to claim knowledge they can't possess.
So my definition of an atheist would not be someone who claims to have disproved God, but one who is still waiting for you to prove yours.
Edit: and then I saw Apple OC's post. Okay. At least one atheist fundamentalist exists.
I was under the impression it was the belief no god(s) existed. Which would then lead to someone with atheistic beliefs affirming the veracity of the statement "there are no god(s)."
As I said a few posts back, I have rarely (never) encountered somebody who makes that claim.
At that other forum (that I left because the level of discussion was so poor) there were a number of posts where people linked to examples of what they called "fundamentalist atheists".
Yet, in every case, those atheists went out of their way to state that they don't know ultimately whether a God or Gods exist, only that there is no proof of their existence. If you can find an atheist who claims "There is no such thing as God," I'll say you found an idiot who likes to claim knowledge they can't possess.
So my definition of an atheist would not be someone who claims to have disproved God, but one who is still waiting for you to prove yours.
Edit: and then I saw Apple OC's post. Okay. At least one atheist fundamentalist exists.
lilo777
Apr 20, 08:23 PM
I don't want to be a systems integrator. I like the Apple iOS ecosystem, and am glad when I want to use different products, it will be easy and seamless for me to migrate.
One of the significant advantages Apple has is that it is a much more considered decision to leave the Apple ecosystyem then it is to leave the Android environment.
Too bad Apple products are few and far between. Want LTE phone? Sorry. Want phone with bigger screen? Sorry. Want computer with USB 3.0 or BluRay? Sorry. I guess you trained yourself not to want anything Steve Jobs does not like. You talk about Apple profits so much, it's likely the more Apple charges you the happier you are.
You can scan it but if you are doing manual removal its because the scanners aren't finding it (but its still there). In these cases you have to hunt the file down manually, most security sites will post removal instructions but Windows OS allows for files to completely hide themselves even when booting into safe mode and having all files and folders as well as system files showing. A lot of files even though they are there can't be seen by command prompt either.
However, buy using a non windows OS you can always see these files so I'll plug the drive they are on into a mac or linux machine and locate the files on there.
Not all viruses hide files like that obviously but some do so if you ever do a manual removal and the file you are looking for isn't there (but you know for sure the machine is infected) then most likely you just have to pop out the drive and plug it into another OS.
I really wish MS would fix this and not let files be hidden, it would make my job MUCH easier.
Go to Folder Option, select View pane, check "Show hidden files, folders and drives". Click Apply. Windows worked like this for decades.
One of the significant advantages Apple has is that it is a much more considered decision to leave the Apple ecosystyem then it is to leave the Android environment.
Too bad Apple products are few and far between. Want LTE phone? Sorry. Want phone with bigger screen? Sorry. Want computer with USB 3.0 or BluRay? Sorry. I guess you trained yourself not to want anything Steve Jobs does not like. You talk about Apple profits so much, it's likely the more Apple charges you the happier you are.
You can scan it but if you are doing manual removal its because the scanners aren't finding it (but its still there). In these cases you have to hunt the file down manually, most security sites will post removal instructions but Windows OS allows for files to completely hide themselves even when booting into safe mode and having all files and folders as well as system files showing. A lot of files even though they are there can't be seen by command prompt either.
However, buy using a non windows OS you can always see these files so I'll plug the drive they are on into a mac or linux machine and locate the files on there.
Not all viruses hide files like that obviously but some do so if you ever do a manual removal and the file you are looking for isn't there (but you know for sure the machine is infected) then most likely you just have to pop out the drive and plug it into another OS.
I really wish MS would fix this and not let files be hidden, it would make my job MUCH easier.
Go to Folder Option, select View pane, check "Show hidden files, folders and drives". Click Apply. Windows worked like this for decades.
SandynJosh
Apr 8, 11:01 PM
Ummm.... everyone that's into gaming HATES Activision.
SOOO??? Apple didn't fricken BUY Activision. They only hired a PR guy. Jeeez!! Read the article before posting such lame drivel.
SOOO??? Apple didn't fricken BUY Activision. They only hired a PR guy. Jeeez!! Read the article before posting such lame drivel.
G58
Feb 22, 01:37 PM
...I don't think Apple has done anything exceptional. They built off of their popular iPod brand. Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod. Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start.
I don't really know where to begin to reply to this simplistic tripe.
In your world, are the policemen made of sugar by any chance?
You: "don't think Apple has done anything exceptional." Buy a Nexus one then.
"They built off of their popular iPod brand."
How did they create the touchscreen iPhone BRAND from the iPod Touch BRAND - a product that was launches after it?
iPhone Release date: June 29, 2007
iPod Touch 1st generation Release date: September 13, 2007
Brands don't build technology. Brands only build limited awareness and trust. But if the iPhone wasn't as good as it is, and as new as it was when it was first released, it would not only not have benefited from any brand benefits created by previous iPod model, it would have failed, and damaged the iPod brand too.
"Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod."
If this was the case, it would be Nokia and RIM duking it out now. Your entire theory is immature and utterly flawed. It's Apple's business model that created this situation, aided and abetted by an utterly moribund mobile phone market prior to their intervention.
"Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start."
Here I agree, but not for any of the reasons you've proposed. Apple's ace is OS X. The version used to power the iPhone is a cut down version of the full OS with a touch screen UI. Every other mobile manufacturer was always going to be at a disadvantage as soon as Apple decided to play in their pool.
I don't really know where to begin to reply to this simplistic tripe.
In your world, are the policemen made of sugar by any chance?
You: "don't think Apple has done anything exceptional." Buy a Nexus one then.
"They built off of their popular iPod brand."
How did they create the touchscreen iPhone BRAND from the iPod Touch BRAND - a product that was launches after it?
iPhone Release date: June 29, 2007
iPod Touch 1st generation Release date: September 13, 2007
Brands don't build technology. Brands only build limited awareness and trust. But if the iPhone wasn't as good as it is, and as new as it was when it was first released, it would not only not have benefited from any brand benefits created by previous iPod model, it would have failed, and damaged the iPod brand too.
"Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod."
If this was the case, it would be Nokia and RIM duking it out now. Your entire theory is immature and utterly flawed. It's Apple's business model that created this situation, aided and abetted by an utterly moribund mobile phone market prior to their intervention.
"Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start."
Here I agree, but not for any of the reasons you've proposed. Apple's ace is OS X. The version used to power the iPhone is a cut down version of the full OS with a touch screen UI. Every other mobile manufacturer was always going to be at a disadvantage as soon as Apple decided to play in their pool.
firestarter
Apr 23, 06:20 PM
Have we answered the question of why there are so many atheists here?
Was the answer: 'It's Easter weekend, all the theists are off celebrating Zombie Jesus day'?
Was the answer: 'It's Easter weekend, all the theists are off celebrating Zombie Jesus day'?
fifthworld
Mar 18, 08:40 AM
I believe nobody is abusing the system; instead, it's the system -unlimited, 2GB, 4Gb, whatever- that is unable to cope with the different needs. As AT&T can monitor the usage of the databand, just give us a plan where we pay based in usage, for example $5 for each block of 1GB, and be done with it!
dgree03
Apr 21, 08:49 AM
I agree with everything you just said, it's the same concept as tethering without paying the mandatory fee. People will try to justify stealing in any way possible.
So are you going to tell me that paying for tethering ON TOP OF DATA YOU ALREADY PAID FOR is fair? Data is data is data... 4gb is 4gb no matter how I use it. Tethering cost are a joke!:mad: /end rant
You are joking right?
So are you going to tell me that paying for tethering ON TOP OF DATA YOU ALREADY PAID FOR is fair? Data is data is data... 4gb is 4gb no matter how I use it. Tethering cost are a joke!:mad: /end rant
You are joking right?
KingYaba
May 2, 01:21 PM
So few virus for MAC than when one appears it is news... :)
It's news because Apple has paraded though commercials explaining how they're safe and Windows is not. Safe from viruses, yes, but even as I looked through this thread I noticed some people don't understand the difference.
CHFy6egYcUg
It's news because Apple has paraded though commercials explaining how they're safe and Windows is not. Safe from viruses, yes, but even as I looked through this thread I noticed some people don't understand the difference.
CHFy6egYcUg
ender land
Apr 26, 01:32 AM
If you strike a bias and confrontational tone, you get one in return.
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
I don't think I did and that certainly is not what I got in return.
I originally was not going to comment on this thread but the above post struck me as relatively interesting. Your first post is full of statements insinuating religious people are less intelligent, illogical, have something wrong with them, are stubborn, incapable of learning, etc.
You might get a useful answer if you instead asked "why do rational or intelligent people believe in religion" if you honestly want to learn more about what you address in the original post. Otherwise, you are not asking an earnest question, you are more or less stating "all religious people are unintelligent or irrational, what do you think?" Of course this would require acknowledging the possibility people might believe in religion for reasons other than fear, ignorance, stubbornness, etc.
Ultimately, the answer to this question will only occur if you can truthfully say "I fundamentally understand why someone is religious. They are because of A, B, C. The reason I disagree with this is because of X, Y, Z." You will not be able to fully answer your question from only the last part of that. Understanding the fundamental differences in what you believe and what someone else believes. And to be perfectly fair, there are probably a large number of religious people of all variety of faiths who probably could not defend their own faith (and in a more general case, real beliefs in general, religious/political/etc) and give any reasons of any significance why they hold the faith/beliefs they do.
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
I don't think I did and that certainly is not what I got in return.
I originally was not going to comment on this thread but the above post struck me as relatively interesting. Your first post is full of statements insinuating religious people are less intelligent, illogical, have something wrong with them, are stubborn, incapable of learning, etc.
You might get a useful answer if you instead asked "why do rational or intelligent people believe in religion" if you honestly want to learn more about what you address in the original post. Otherwise, you are not asking an earnest question, you are more or less stating "all religious people are unintelligent or irrational, what do you think?" Of course this would require acknowledging the possibility people might believe in religion for reasons other than fear, ignorance, stubbornness, etc.
Ultimately, the answer to this question will only occur if you can truthfully say "I fundamentally understand why someone is religious. They are because of A, B, C. The reason I disagree with this is because of X, Y, Z." You will not be able to fully answer your question from only the last part of that. Understanding the fundamental differences in what you believe and what someone else believes. And to be perfectly fair, there are probably a large number of religious people of all variety of faiths who probably could not defend their own faith (and in a more general case, real beliefs in general, religious/political/etc) and give any reasons of any significance why they hold the faith/beliefs they do.
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 10:43 AM
That's true. I think, though, if anything, the hatred of another religion was a pretty strong motivational force in the US armed forces since 9/11. Especially right after, when many people joined up to fight the Muslims who attacked the USA.
Would attribute that to a personal religious motivation as opposed to an institutional one. Muslims serve in the US forces as well.
Would attribute that to a personal religious motivation as opposed to an institutional one. Muslims serve in the US forces as well.
legreve
Apr 6, 04:04 AM
One thing that got me was that you cannot make apps fill the screen without dragging and resizing. You can only resize from the bottom right corner. No real other annoyances for me that I can think of.
That is being dealt with in Lion... you'll be able to resize on all edges.
I was in the same situation as you OP until some 4-5 years ago, when I was introduced to mac through work. I was stubborn and went through the whole "pc is equal to mac and cheaper" rubbish :)
But this also colors me in relations to noticing bad things about OSX.
I agree with the window resizing thing. But since that's taken care off... well.
To be honest I think you need to consider the positive sides as well. Things like not having a visible program folder with all sorts of nice files to click on. It's basically just an icon on a mac (though one that you can explore to reveal the contents).
Another thing... I never fully understood why I had to be bothered with the way a pc starts up. First the loading screen with hardware checks and what not. Then the black screen, then the windows loading screen and if one had it enabled, the login screen, and then the whole preparing of the desktop area to start up services and so on.
Compared to OSX, that is just too much and not being a programmer etc. I couldn't care less with all that initial info the boot screens on a pc gives me.
What you wont like about switching is the extremely closed univers of Apple. You sync items to a specific computer instead of having a free roaming device that can sync anywhere. Crist it's easier to copy files from my work iMac to my HTC phone than to my mates iPhone... ??!!
One thing to add with Apple universe is that I think they are working their way towards an even tighter app store. In the future I could easily see something similar to that Sky idea where you don't own the app but a license to access the online contents :S I think that will take longer to catch on in the pc universe.
Regarding browsers... I work with FF all day. But at home I was used to Explorer 8. I really like Explorer better than FF. Can't explain why, I just feel FF is heavier now to use than IE is. Also it seems like either FF or OSX requires more addons to use the same websites and services than IE on my pc does.
Folders... I'm so used to the whole disk drive with subfolders, fx. E: and then a folder for every little thing I've got.
The OSX system while probably the same, feels different. Best explained by:
OSX: 2-3 cabinets with several drawers and in the drawers are subfolders.
Windows: 1 cabinet, 1 drawer, lots of subfolders. (unless one partitions ones drive :) )
But all in all, I'm really really happy that I switched. My new MBP feels stable, OSX looks nice (I even geeked out and changed the looks on my folders etc :P), and it allows me to concentrate on what is important, and that is not tweaking (I'm not 15-18 anymore), it's getting work done and get it done smoothely.
In general its only about adjusting to a new setting.
That is being dealt with in Lion... you'll be able to resize on all edges.
I was in the same situation as you OP until some 4-5 years ago, when I was introduced to mac through work. I was stubborn and went through the whole "pc is equal to mac and cheaper" rubbish :)
But this also colors me in relations to noticing bad things about OSX.
I agree with the window resizing thing. But since that's taken care off... well.
To be honest I think you need to consider the positive sides as well. Things like not having a visible program folder with all sorts of nice files to click on. It's basically just an icon on a mac (though one that you can explore to reveal the contents).
Another thing... I never fully understood why I had to be bothered with the way a pc starts up. First the loading screen with hardware checks and what not. Then the black screen, then the windows loading screen and if one had it enabled, the login screen, and then the whole preparing of the desktop area to start up services and so on.
Compared to OSX, that is just too much and not being a programmer etc. I couldn't care less with all that initial info the boot screens on a pc gives me.
What you wont like about switching is the extremely closed univers of Apple. You sync items to a specific computer instead of having a free roaming device that can sync anywhere. Crist it's easier to copy files from my work iMac to my HTC phone than to my mates iPhone... ??!!
One thing to add with Apple universe is that I think they are working their way towards an even tighter app store. In the future I could easily see something similar to that Sky idea where you don't own the app but a license to access the online contents :S I think that will take longer to catch on in the pc universe.
Regarding browsers... I work with FF all day. But at home I was used to Explorer 8. I really like Explorer better than FF. Can't explain why, I just feel FF is heavier now to use than IE is. Also it seems like either FF or OSX requires more addons to use the same websites and services than IE on my pc does.
Folders... I'm so used to the whole disk drive with subfolders, fx. E: and then a folder for every little thing I've got.
The OSX system while probably the same, feels different. Best explained by:
OSX: 2-3 cabinets with several drawers and in the drawers are subfolders.
Windows: 1 cabinet, 1 drawer, lots of subfolders. (unless one partitions ones drive :) )
But all in all, I'm really really happy that I switched. My new MBP feels stable, OSX looks nice (I even geeked out and changed the looks on my folders etc :P), and it allows me to concentrate on what is important, and that is not tweaking (I'm not 15-18 anymore), it's getting work done and get it done smoothely.
In general its only about adjusting to a new setting.
makinao
Mar 11, 02:48 AM
Satoneko and everyone else in Japan: Please take precautions for aftershocks. In my country, the worst earthquake disaster when two separate 7.0 earthquakes hit the same area within minutes of each other, and aftershocks continued for several days. The worst may not be over. We're hoping for everyone's safety.
*Just read another 6.4 quake just happened.
*Just read another 6.4 quake just happened.
DrGruv1
Sep 26, 02:37 PM
Quad-core Clovertown server CPUs to appear on November 16
Intel will announce two-way quad-core server Clovertown processors, which will be marketed under the Xeon 5300-series name, on November 16, according to Taiwan-based motherboard makers. The quad-core Clovertown processors contain two dual-core Woodcrest chips housed in a single package.
The Xeon 5300 CPU family will debut with the Xeon X5355 (2.66GHz/1333MHz FSB/8MB L2 cache), E5345 (2.33GHz/1333MHz FSB/8MB L2 cache), E5320 (1.86GHz/1066MHz FSB/8MB L2 cache) and E5310 (1.60GHz/1066MHz FSB/8MB L2 cache), with unit prices ranging from US$455 to US$1,172, indicated the sources.
In addition, Intel is scheduled to launch one-way quad-core Kentsfield processors under the Xeon 3200 lineup in January the makers said. By the third quarter of next year, Intel will launch its four-way quad-core Tigerton CPUs, the makers added.
Rival AMD will announce its first dual-core server processors manufactured using 65-nanometer (65nm) process technology by the first quarter of according to the makers.
http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20060925A5022.html
Intel will announce two-way quad-core server Clovertown processors, which will be marketed under the Xeon 5300-series name, on November 16, according to Taiwan-based motherboard makers. The quad-core Clovertown processors contain two dual-core Woodcrest chips housed in a single package.
The Xeon 5300 CPU family will debut with the Xeon X5355 (2.66GHz/1333MHz FSB/8MB L2 cache), E5345 (2.33GHz/1333MHz FSB/8MB L2 cache), E5320 (1.86GHz/1066MHz FSB/8MB L2 cache) and E5310 (1.60GHz/1066MHz FSB/8MB L2 cache), with unit prices ranging from US$455 to US$1,172, indicated the sources.
In addition, Intel is scheduled to launch one-way quad-core Kentsfield processors under the Xeon 3200 lineup in January the makers said. By the third quarter of next year, Intel will launch its four-way quad-core Tigerton CPUs, the makers added.
Rival AMD will announce its first dual-core server processors manufactured using 65-nanometer (65nm) process technology by the first quarter of according to the makers.
http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20060925A5022.html
jettredmont
May 2, 05:35 PM
Is your info from like 1993 ? Because this little known version of Windows dubbed "New Technology" or NT for short brought along something called the NTFS (New Technology File System) that has... *drumroll* ACLs and strict permissions with inheritance...
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Absolutely. I think it is absolutely critical to discern between a social-engineering attack (ie, one that requires a user to take some action unwittingly) from an automated attack (a classic virus or worm). The latter is certainly less common these days (although the "big boys" wanting to send Iranian nuclear reactors into convulsions seem to be keeping the dark art of worming alive and well), and so a typical user is much more likely to fall victim to a phishing scam than to get something nasty like the Asuza virus which wipes out their hard drive after an incubation period.
From the main "security firms", though, the money is in making all malware seem automated and thus only able to be countered by an automated virus detection/isolation utility. There just isn't much money in telling people to not click "Install" when MACDefender's installer comes up while looking through Google Images.
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Absolutely. I think it is absolutely critical to discern between a social-engineering attack (ie, one that requires a user to take some action unwittingly) from an automated attack (a classic virus or worm). The latter is certainly less common these days (although the "big boys" wanting to send Iranian nuclear reactors into convulsions seem to be keeping the dark art of worming alive and well), and so a typical user is much more likely to fall victim to a phishing scam than to get something nasty like the Asuza virus which wipes out their hard drive after an incubation period.
From the main "security firms", though, the money is in making all malware seem automated and thus only able to be countered by an automated virus detection/isolation utility. There just isn't much money in telling people to not click "Install" when MACDefender's installer comes up while looking through Google Images.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 11:45 AM
Yes, I strongly disagree that students need to learn Windows in order to thrive in the workplace. Nowadays work is being done in browsers more than anywhere else, and that trend will continue inexorably as we move to the cloud future. Kids need to learn how to use a computer. Which one is not that important any more. Times have changed.
And on the topic of laughing at OS X market share, keep on laughing. Apple is the most profitable computer company on the planet. Dell and Microsoft wish they had Apple's problems.
And on the topic of laughing at OS X market share, keep on laughing. Apple is the most profitable computer company on the planet. Dell and Microsoft wish they had Apple's problems.
crazytom
Mar 19, 10:33 PM
Why I don't like copy protection: I would prefer to use the music I purchase in whatever way I want. For those of you who say "If you don't like the scheme, don't buy it" --- I agree, I haven't purchased a single song from iTMS. It's overpriced, second rate quality, and rounded out with restrictions. I'm saying F U to the RIAA. I don't have anything against the artists, but it's a shame they won't ever get my appreciation ($$$) for their creativity and hard work (it's criminal, I tell you...).
DRM only protects the already well-to-do artists. It's like they have a bucket full of money and they want to keep ANY of it from leaking over the edge...it sure sounds like greed....say, isn't that one of the seven deadly sins? Oh...I'm sorry, maybe that's sounding too 'Robin Hood-ish'. :rolleyes:
Recording engineer Steve Albini spoke a community college and was asked what he thought about sharing music. His response was that it was a great idea; his band got more exposure to a greater number of people because of music sharing. Hmmm....that coming from someone who recorded Nirvana, Cheap Trick, Jesus Lizard, Bush.....
Now, if the RIAA would sell me a piece of music that I could sell back to them (at a discount, of course) because I realized what a piece of crap it was after listening to it 5 times, then we'd be in business!!! Wait...that sounds ~a little~ like Napster's deal (except for the selling it back)...too bad it's PC only. :(
And, I'd just like to say: "Way to go DVD Jon!!! Keep up the good work!!!"
Uh, wait....
From the iTMS TOS:
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.
Oh, crap. Now I'm screwed. I'm a criminal. Canada here I come. :p
DRM only protects the already well-to-do artists. It's like they have a bucket full of money and they want to keep ANY of it from leaking over the edge...it sure sounds like greed....say, isn't that one of the seven deadly sins? Oh...I'm sorry, maybe that's sounding too 'Robin Hood-ish'. :rolleyes:
Recording engineer Steve Albini spoke a community college and was asked what he thought about sharing music. His response was that it was a great idea; his band got more exposure to a greater number of people because of music sharing. Hmmm....that coming from someone who recorded Nirvana, Cheap Trick, Jesus Lizard, Bush.....
Now, if the RIAA would sell me a piece of music that I could sell back to them (at a discount, of course) because I realized what a piece of crap it was after listening to it 5 times, then we'd be in business!!! Wait...that sounds ~a little~ like Napster's deal (except for the selling it back)...too bad it's PC only. :(
And, I'd just like to say: "Way to go DVD Jon!!! Keep up the good work!!!"
Uh, wait....
From the iTMS TOS:
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.
Oh, crap. Now I'm screwed. I'm a criminal. Canada here I come. :p
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق