rquick
Aug 25, 02:21 AM
I read through most of these posts and I just have to rant a little. It's funny how the only place that people are unhappy with AT&T service and the iPhone is in surveys and on these forums. Except for the survey a few weeks back that said AT&T had the highest approval ratings. It probably depends on how you ask the questions. Nobody asked me, but I have had each model of the iphone and the only time I had a high number of dropped calls was with the 3g right after it was released about 2 years ago. The first major firmware upgrade fixed it and the number of dropped calls fell dramatically. It still had a few, but not to the point of being a problem. That phone is still in use by someone I know and see everyday and they love it. I now have the iphone 4 (since release day) and I can't remember my last dropped call. It has no reception issues at all - if anything it is the best connection and sound I have ever had with a cellphone. I am in Texas where AT&T rules - it is the old SWB after all and is based in Texas. I haven't had the chance to travel with the 4 yet, but I traveled all over the country with my 3gs and never had a problem. A few spots in the mountains that had no reception at all, but that was true for everyone else there too. Verizon included. I have a close friend whose entire company switched from Verizon and Blackberrys to get iPhones for everyone and they are extremely satisfied. They work all over the country (I mean literally everywhere) and their IT manager told me the cellphone and email related complaints have dropped off dramatically since they dropped Verizon cell phones and their old Blackberrys. That wouldn't be possible if AT&T was so universally hated. I have to admit though, I'm not positive the BBs were on Verizon but I think so because their cellphones definitely were. They carried both and many of their people were upset at being forced to carry Verizon phones. People just hate to be forced. It seems like a lot of people here say the iPhone won't even work in NY because of AT&T. My daughter lives in NY and she has had a 3g for 2 years and says she has no issues. Except in the subway. All of her friends use iphones in and around NY and they say they have no issues. Except in the subway. Anyone want to tell me that Verizon works in the subway? Nobody is perfect. And then I see someone on here complaining about the build of the iPhone 4 and I realize again that people are so totally full of crap it's amazing. The one thing no reasonable person can possibly complain about is the design and build quality of the 4 - make believe antenna issues notwithstanding- not without lying through their teeth. The design is absolutely outstanding. I love the glass back and the screen is beautiful. Makes me suspect they have not even had the chance to hold one yet. My daughter has tried to buy one several times in NY over the past few weeks without success because they are still in such extremely high demand. Like they would still be that popular if the service was so pitiful. She told me last week that the shipments are still sold out everyday at her favorite Apple stores. I keep telling her to try an AT&T store but she likes Apple stores, you know - where they treat her so rudely and don't have anyone helpful. Maybe its all in how YOU treat the people around you. Try saying something nice and maybe the clerk will look up from her ipad next time.
Eso
Mar 18, 09:53 AM
Sir it is perfect.
You are paying for the same thing.
I have an unlimted plan
and I never have gone over 5gb
if one has a 2gb plan and never goes over and we both surf on the internet
Tethering whats the difference?
It's easy to make the argument unlimited data plans are priced according to an average amount of data that wireless devices use. The average amount of data used while tethering can be shown to be substantially higher, resulting in higher costs, and justifying a higher price. The key is that their argument may rest upon the price of providing unlimited data. You argument rests upon the amount of data used, however in either case (whether tethered or not) users can use an unlimited amount of data.
You are paying for the same thing.
I have an unlimted plan
and I never have gone over 5gb
if one has a 2gb plan and never goes over and we both surf on the internet
Tethering whats the difference?
It's easy to make the argument unlimited data plans are priced according to an average amount of data that wireless devices use. The average amount of data used while tethering can be shown to be substantially higher, resulting in higher costs, and justifying a higher price. The key is that their argument may rest upon the price of providing unlimited data. You argument rests upon the amount of data used, however in either case (whether tethered or not) users can use an unlimited amount of data.
calsci
May 5, 08:28 PM
they never seem to be on top of this issue.
Heilage
Apr 15, 09:48 AM
yeah that is kind of been my issue with this at well. They focus on the LGBT community but complete side track what I am willing to be is a larger group of striaght kids who get bullied and have long term emotional problems from bullies. That be the fact kids, kids with random disability or just easy targets for one reason or another but they are straight so they do not get focuses on by the media..
I'm a straight, white, middle class kid. And even I felt that was relevant to my own life and experiences. While they specifically talk about being gay, the message of how to deal with hardships when you grow up is still relevant.
I'm a straight, white, middle class kid. And even I felt that was relevant to my own life and experiences. While they specifically talk about being gay, the message of how to deal with hardships when you grow up is still relevant.
munkery
May 2, 04:05 PM
In Windows 7 you not only have the option to switch it on and off, you can also customize the intrusiveness of it, I find it much more user friendly than in OS X.
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Having a password associated with permissions has other benefits as well.
So Safari auto-downloads, unarchives and auto-executes something, but you think it is safe because it's an installer ? :confused:
If "Open safe files after downloading" is turned on, it will both unarchive the zip file and launch the installer. Installers are marked as safe to launch because require authentication to complete installation.
I'm sorry, but I'm still curious about the "auto-execute" part. Why would it run the installer automatically after decompressing it. That sounds quite "unsafe" to me. Even without administrator privilege, that means code can still run that can affect the current user's account.
No harm can be done from just launching the installer. But, you are correct in that code is being executed in user space.
Code run in user space is used to achieve privilege escalation via exploitation or social engineering (trick user to authenticate -> as in this malware). There is very little that can be done beyond prank style attacks with only user level access. System level access is required for usefully dangerous malware install, such as keyloggers that can log protected passwords. This is why there is little malware for Mac OS X. Achieving system level access to Windows via exploitation is much easier.
Webkit2 will further reduce the possibility of even achieving user level access.
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Having a password associated with permissions has other benefits as well.
So Safari auto-downloads, unarchives and auto-executes something, but you think it is safe because it's an installer ? :confused:
If "Open safe files after downloading" is turned on, it will both unarchive the zip file and launch the installer. Installers are marked as safe to launch because require authentication to complete installation.
I'm sorry, but I'm still curious about the "auto-execute" part. Why would it run the installer automatically after decompressing it. That sounds quite "unsafe" to me. Even without administrator privilege, that means code can still run that can affect the current user's account.
No harm can be done from just launching the installer. But, you are correct in that code is being executed in user space.
Code run in user space is used to achieve privilege escalation via exploitation or social engineering (trick user to authenticate -> as in this malware). There is very little that can be done beyond prank style attacks with only user level access. System level access is required for usefully dangerous malware install, such as keyloggers that can log protected passwords. This is why there is little malware for Mac OS X. Achieving system level access to Windows via exploitation is much easier.
Webkit2 will further reduce the possibility of even achieving user level access.
bradl
Mar 12, 02:05 AM
how far is Sendai from Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
so much radiation!!!:eek:
Sendai is well north of Tokyo. 189mi/304km.
Hiroshima is 894km/482mi south of Tokyo, with Nagasaki being 960km/596mi south of Tokyo.
In short, at least 5 - 10 hour's drive.
BL.
so much radiation!!!:eek:
Sendai is well north of Tokyo. 189mi/304km.
Hiroshima is 894km/482mi south of Tokyo, with Nagasaki being 960km/596mi south of Tokyo.
In short, at least 5 - 10 hour's drive.
BL.
CaoCao
Mar 25, 09:59 AM
Subtract the individuals affiliated with gangs and the mentally unstable and we're staring at a long list of homosexuals murdered by "mainstream" individuals, many of whom attended church on a regular basis and were in fact catholic. That their religious affiliations are not immediately telegraphed is not evidence of absence, but rather of the fact that 76% of the population self-identifies as Christian.
Aren't we having a thread about religion dying?
Don't forget to subtract the victims who we aren't sure about them being killed because they were homosexual.
So, how many can you prove were Catholic, mentally stable and not in gangs?
People can BELIEVE whatever they want.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
"so frequently" ORLY? Prove it. To prove that the Catholic Church restricts rights you have to prove that the rights existed before.
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
To stretch my own analogy, it also ignores that the men who put on white hoods and terrorized black people were not "mainstream" white people either, but they were nevertheless acting on the attitudes held by "mainstream" white people. They were radical, but saw themselves as the ones with the strength of will to enforce the true will of the "mainstream." It's all very well to believe that the darkies should keep their place, but somebody's got to do the work of keeping them there when they step out of line.
However, I will return to what I touched on before: the Catholic Church (and Christian churches generally in the United States) currently have no need for terrorist thugs. They have great political influence and have convinced a significant plurality (seemingly no longer a majority, I am gratified to point out) that they are entitled to subjugate others bloodlessly and anonymously through the democratic process.
At least this is so until the courts clearly state once and for all that this is incompatible with our law and our society. Incidentally, that's also when the thugs will really come out, and you watch how many of them claim to be doing the Lord's work.
The Klan was basically an organization with the express purpose of keeping Negroes in line, can you prove an equivalent organization in the Catholic Church?
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
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'.
If we constantly expand the topic, none of what was previously said is relevant.
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.
You forgot the fact that many "Christians" in the US are fundamentalist nuts
Aren't we having a thread about religion dying?
Don't forget to subtract the victims who we aren't sure about them being killed because they were homosexual.
So, how many can you prove were Catholic, mentally stable and not in gangs?
People can BELIEVE whatever they want.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
"so frequently" ORLY? Prove it. To prove that the Catholic Church restricts rights you have to prove that the rights existed before.
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
To stretch my own analogy, it also ignores that the men who put on white hoods and terrorized black people were not "mainstream" white people either, but they were nevertheless acting on the attitudes held by "mainstream" white people. They were radical, but saw themselves as the ones with the strength of will to enforce the true will of the "mainstream." It's all very well to believe that the darkies should keep their place, but somebody's got to do the work of keeping them there when they step out of line.
However, I will return to what I touched on before: the Catholic Church (and Christian churches generally in the United States) currently have no need for terrorist thugs. They have great political influence and have convinced a significant plurality (seemingly no longer a majority, I am gratified to point out) that they are entitled to subjugate others bloodlessly and anonymously through the democratic process.
At least this is so until the courts clearly state once and for all that this is incompatible with our law and our society. Incidentally, that's also when the thugs will really come out, and you watch how many of them claim to be doing the Lord's work.
The Klan was basically an organization with the express purpose of keeping Negroes in line, can you prove an equivalent organization in the Catholic Church?
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
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'.
If we constantly expand the topic, none of what was previously said is relevant.
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.
You forgot the fact that many "Christians" in the US are fundamentalist nuts
Frobozz
Apr 15, 10:12 AM
That was a great video. My brother is gay and life as a teenager was very difficult in the small town we grew up in. Honestly, these lessons are important for all children who are bullied. Those P.O.S. bullies are usually doomed to a terrible life, and those who are bullied can blossom into real people. Folks, I knew a kid who killed himself over a bad report card. It was a straw the broke the camel's back, for sure-- but if you don't give yourself a chance to outlast the bad parts, you're selling yourself short. Give yourself a chance to live long and pass away with a wonderful life full of experiences and love.
I hope that video helps people see past their current predicament with bullies!
I hope that video helps people see past their current predicament with bullies!
Free2B
Aug 30, 11:39 AM
Maybe someone has mentioned this, but I find it extremely ironic that Greenpeace is hitting up Apple, where none other than Al Gore is on the board!! Can Apple really be that bad? (oh, they were 4th worst out of about 20 companies.) So, either Al Gore doesn't put his money where his mouth is, or Greenpeace is just trying further its anti-corporate agenda. Maybe both???
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.
CalBoy
Apr 22, 10:41 PM
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.
I haven't seen that in my experience. Most atheists put a great deal of deliberative thought into their position. "Casual" atheists are more commonly, in my experience, agnostics with a poor vocabulary. In fact, the very idea of holding a position without substantiation is an anathema to what atheists hold above all else: the triumph of reason over "intuition."
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
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.
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
Yes, you did. You lumped up three distinct theories about three different aspects of cosmic, geological, and biological history, all because they were an affront to your beliefs (or to your incredulity, whichever fits better).
"Exploding" only applies to the Big Bang Theory (and barely at that). Planetary formation and cell formation are radically different and quite complex, as is the Big Bang Theory. Trying to lump them all into one "explosion" from which your current reality directly came to be only shows your scientific illiteracy, not an inherent weakness in any one of these well-tested ideas.
I haven't seen that in my experience. Most atheists put a great deal of deliberative thought into their position. "Casual" atheists are more commonly, in my experience, agnostics with a poor vocabulary. In fact, the very idea of holding a position without substantiation is an anathema to what atheists hold above all else: the triumph of reason over "intuition."
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
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.
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
Yes, you did. You lumped up three distinct theories about three different aspects of cosmic, geological, and biological history, all because they were an affront to your beliefs (or to your incredulity, whichever fits better).
"Exploding" only applies to the Big Bang Theory (and barely at that). Planetary formation and cell formation are radically different and quite complex, as is the Big Bang Theory. Trying to lump them all into one "explosion" from which your current reality directly came to be only shows your scientific illiteracy, not an inherent weakness in any one of these well-tested ideas.
Gosh
Sep 12, 06:09 PM
Hi All, Hi Al!
I'm feeling a bit thick maybe on this but how does iTV differ from EyeHome?
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyehome:confused:
I'm feeling a bit thick maybe on this but how does iTV differ from EyeHome?
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyehome:confused:
MacCoaster
Oct 11, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by WanaPBnow
How does it run on an UltraSparc III 900?
I don't know. I'll run it on an UltraSPARC II sometime when I can. My step-dad's box isn't loaded up yet.
Lets get an assortment of score, there could be a code bug for the G4, I am not an expert, but 10-20 times slower sounds like science fiction.
Really? Code bug? How? It's a simple C/C#/Java/obj-C program. The G4 shouldn't be so slow with a task oh so simple. It's also no bug that Altivec doesn't include hardware double precision floating point. But then again, we weren't testing them with hardware support--just testing the pure CPU power. In fact, if you don't believe us--please, we beg you, look at the source code. Nothing Altivec/SSE/SSE2/3DNow/any of that crap there. 10-20 times slower isn't science fiction when it comes to double precision floating point on the G4. It simply blows.
How does it run on an UltraSparc III 900?
I don't know. I'll run it on an UltraSPARC II sometime when I can. My step-dad's box isn't loaded up yet.
Lets get an assortment of score, there could be a code bug for the G4, I am not an expert, but 10-20 times slower sounds like science fiction.
Really? Code bug? How? It's a simple C/C#/Java/obj-C program. The G4 shouldn't be so slow with a task oh so simple. It's also no bug that Altivec doesn't include hardware double precision floating point. But then again, we weren't testing them with hardware support--just testing the pure CPU power. In fact, if you don't believe us--please, we beg you, look at the source code. Nothing Altivec/SSE/SSE2/3DNow/any of that crap there. 10-20 times slower isn't science fiction when it comes to double precision floating point on the G4. It simply blows.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:40 AM
I have a great one: until 1973 the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental illness until they looked at some evidence and found the only harm associated with being gay was the harm inflicted on gay people by hateful a-holes, and without the a-holes, gay people are as happy and well-adjusted as anyone else.
I meant what I said I didn't know whether homosexuality was a mental illness. But I think it's important to distinguish between a mental illness and a that has psychological and/or environmental causes. Mental illnesses include clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, and others. Inferiority complexes, poor self-esteem, and some irrational fears, say, are psychological problems, not mental illnesses. I think homosexuality is a psychological problem with psychological and/or environmental causes. Many same-sex-attracted people think they're born that way or even that homosexuality is genetic. I disagree with them. I think homosexuality begins when the same-sex-attracted person is about 2. If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
I wouldn't be surprised to know that the American Psychiatric Association changed the DSM because of political pressure from special interest groups who disagreed with what the APA thought about homosexuality.
Remember what I said about induction and the asymmetry between confirmation and refutation because even an inductively justified majority opinion can be false.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
I may not have written clearly enough because I am taking a position, Nicolosi's position. Is there a chance that Nicolosi's same-sex-attracted critics dismiss his opinion because they're biased? Gelfin says that there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological causes. But Nicolosi and his colleagues think they are presenting such evidence. Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.
I meant what I said I didn't know whether homosexuality was a mental illness. But I think it's important to distinguish between a mental illness and a that has psychological and/or environmental causes. Mental illnesses include clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, and others. Inferiority complexes, poor self-esteem, and some irrational fears, say, are psychological problems, not mental illnesses. I think homosexuality is a psychological problem with psychological and/or environmental causes. Many same-sex-attracted people think they're born that way or even that homosexuality is genetic. I disagree with them. I think homosexuality begins when the same-sex-attracted person is about 2. If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
I wouldn't be surprised to know that the American Psychiatric Association changed the DSM because of political pressure from special interest groups who disagreed with what the APA thought about homosexuality.
Remember what I said about induction and the asymmetry between confirmation and refutation because even an inductively justified majority opinion can be false.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
I may not have written clearly enough because I am taking a position, Nicolosi's position. Is there a chance that Nicolosi's same-sex-attracted critics dismiss his opinion because they're biased? Gelfin says that there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological causes. But Nicolosi and his colleagues think they are presenting such evidence. Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.
twoodcc
Oct 10, 10:32 AM
it's too early to tell yet. this is all just speculation at this point. wait until more android phones and android 1.5 is out first
polaris20
Apr 21, 03:14 PM
But just like Windows, it's practically impossible to have any problems unless you do something stupid.
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
Well, there are a few problems with your theories. First of all, there are vulnerabilities in Windows that merely visiting a web page clicked on from a Google search gets your machine infected. Or, you could visit a legitimate website that has mistakenly sold ad space to people hosting malware (this has occurred with both Foxnews.com and NYTimes.com), or you can download an app that you think is legitimate, but has spyware (like PrimoPDF).
I love seeing this "As long as you know what you're doing, and you're not an idiot, you're fine" attitude.
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
Well, there are a few problems with your theories. First of all, there are vulnerabilities in Windows that merely visiting a web page clicked on from a Google search gets your machine infected. Or, you could visit a legitimate website that has mistakenly sold ad space to people hosting malware (this has occurred with both Foxnews.com and NYTimes.com), or you can download an app that you think is legitimate, but has spyware (like PrimoPDF).
I love seeing this "As long as you know what you're doing, and you're not an idiot, you're fine" attitude.
Multimedia
Sep 28, 04:40 PM
Is there any advantage or disadvantage (other than future expandability) to getting to 4GB of memory by using 8x512MB versus using 4x1GB?Aparently the answer is "technically yes". See below. I did not know that. But from what they say and a practical point of view the answer is still no.
Gosh
Sep 12, 06:09 PM
Hi All, Hi Al!
I'm feeling a bit thick maybe on this but how does iTV differ from EyeHome?
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyehome:confused:
I'm feeling a bit thick maybe on this but how does iTV differ from EyeHome?
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyehome:confused:
aswitcher
Jul 12, 06:33 AM
I really hope they are right about a the low cost single chip version so we can make good home multimedia center.
CalBoy
Apr 22, 10:41 PM
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.
I haven't seen that in my experience. Most atheists put a great deal of deliberative thought into their position. "Casual" atheists are more commonly, in my experience, agnostics with a poor vocabulary. In fact, the very idea of holding a position without substantiation is an anathema to what atheists hold above all else: the triumph of reason over "intuition."
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
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.
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
Yes, you did. You lumped up three distinct theories about three different aspects of cosmic, geological, and biological history, all because they were an affront to your beliefs (or to your incredulity, whichever fits better).
"Exploding" only applies to the Big Bang Theory (and barely at that). Planetary formation and cell formation are radically different and quite complex, as is the Big Bang Theory. Trying to lump them all into one "explosion" from which your current reality directly came to be only shows your scientific illiteracy, not an inherent weakness in any one of these well-tested ideas.
I haven't seen that in my experience. Most atheists put a great deal of deliberative thought into their position. "Casual" atheists are more commonly, in my experience, agnostics with a poor vocabulary. In fact, the very idea of holding a position without substantiation is an anathema to what atheists hold above all else: the triumph of reason over "intuition."
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
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.
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
Yes, you did. You lumped up three distinct theories about three different aspects of cosmic, geological, and biological history, all because they were an affront to your beliefs (or to your incredulity, whichever fits better).
"Exploding" only applies to the Big Bang Theory (and barely at that). Planetary formation and cell formation are radically different and quite complex, as is the Big Bang Theory. Trying to lump them all into one "explosion" from which your current reality directly came to be only shows your scientific illiteracy, not an inherent weakness in any one of these well-tested ideas.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 03:06 PM
I have never been to a Muslim country, but I am sure the results are amplified outside of North America ... I have worked with many Muslims here in Canada ... I have never met even one that was not completely controlling over their spouse or daughters.
Were they of Pakistani/Bangladeshi origin by any chance? It seems in their culture to be possessive of their women.
20 years ago I had never heard of a Father murdering their Daughter because she was dressing "too western"
Thanks EdifyingG ... I was not going to look up all that ... pretty much sums things up
CULTURE. Nothing to do with Islam!!!!!!!! Family of Pakistani origin.
Rebuttal provided.
Were they of Pakistani/Bangladeshi origin by any chance? It seems in their culture to be possessive of their women.
20 years ago I had never heard of a Father murdering their Daughter because she was dressing "too western"
Thanks EdifyingG ... I was not going to look up all that ... pretty much sums things up
CULTURE. Nothing to do with Islam!!!!!!!! Family of Pakistani origin.
Rebuttal provided.
crackbookpro
Apr 13, 11:52 AM
I'm getting this, but I will still be using FC Studio 7 a ton... I agree with both sides a lot on these ongoing threads/disagreements on the new release of FCPX.
I altogether, do think it will be a great release, I just know some want some other features, functions, benefits... and are waiting.
I altogether, do think it will be a great release, I just know some want some other features, functions, benefits... and are waiting.
kresh
Oct 26, 02:39 AM
Now we see what Apple saw - why the Mac Pro is strickly BTO.
Just add two more processor options for the X5355 and E5345, and this upgrade is done.
Wow, simply amazing. Kudos Apple!
Just add two more processor options for the X5355 and E5345, and this upgrade is done.
Wow, simply amazing. Kudos Apple!
wtfk
Aug 29, 02:32 PM
Eh, I believe little of what Greenpeace ever says. :rolleyes:
There's little reason to. Penn & Teller blasted them real good on their TV show "Bulls hit! (http://tinyurl.com/s4gfc)" on Showtime.
There's little reason to. Penn & Teller blasted them real good on their TV show "Bulls hit! (http://tinyurl.com/s4gfc)" on Showtime.
No comments:
Post a Comment